https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377470 A demand of duty and recovery of refund based on an allegation of non-manufacture was unsustainable where the record showed periodic departmental checks, approvals from the Directorate of Industries and the Pollution Control Board, and movement of goods and vehicles, while the investigation relied mainly on assumptions and material from another commissionerate. On that evidentiary basis, the finding that no manufacture had taken place could not stand, and the demand and penalty were set aside. Once manufacture was accepted, the unit was entitled to area-based exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE and the consequential refund relief could not be denied or reversed without concrete proof. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Mar 2019 06:55:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377470 A demand of duty and recovery of refund based on an allegation of non-manufacture was unsustainable where the record showed periodic departmental checks, approvals from the Directorate of Industries and the Pollution Control Board, and movement of goods and vehicles, while the investigation relied mainly on assumptions and material from another commissionerate. On that evidentiary basis, the finding that no manufacture had taken place could not stand, and the demand and penalty were set aside. Once manufacture was accepted, the unit was entitled to area-based exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE and the consequential refund relief could not be denied or reversed without concrete proof. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377470