https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380612 Entitlement to exemption and cash refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE was sustained because the revenue lacked concrete evidence that the units were non-manufacturing or that inputs were not received. The allegation that farmers and commission agents were fictitious was not supported by corroborative material; transportation entries, departmental visits, local authority verification, and other records indicated receipt of inputs and continued manufacture. As the demand rested mainly on an investigation from another jurisdiction and on assumption rather than direct adverse evidence, the proceedings were treated as unsustainable and the refund benefit was allowed. en-us Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 May 2019 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380612 Entitlement to exemption and cash refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE was sustained because the revenue lacked concrete evidence that the units were non-manufacturing or that inputs were not received. The allegation that farmers and commission agents were fictitious was not supported by corroborative material; transportation entries, departmental visits, local authority verification, and other records indicated receipt of inputs and continued manufacture. As the demand rested mainly on an investigation from another jurisdiction and on assumption rather than direct adverse evidence, the proceedings were treated as unsustainable and the refund benefit was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380612