https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411130 The Tribunal set aside the excise duty demand as it was based on assumptions without substantive evidence. The appellant's argument that the department erred in assuming 100% conversion of preforms to PET bottles and failed to account for wastage was accepted. The allegation of clandestine removal of goods was not substantiated, and the delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice led to the limitation period being exceeded. Consequently, the demand for excise duty, penalty, and interest was quashed, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2021 11:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411130 The Tribunal set aside the excise duty demand as it was based on assumptions without substantive evidence. The appellant's argument that the department erred in assuming 100% conversion of preforms to PET bottles and failed to account for wastage was accepted. The allegation of clandestine removal of goods was not substantiated, and the delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice led to the limitation period being exceeded. Consequently, the demand for excise duty, penalty, and interest was quashed, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411130