https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417708 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, the Director of a manufacturing company, in a case concerning duty demand confirmation. The decision highlighted the necessity of concrete proof linking the appellant to alleged clandestine activities, emphasizing that evidence from third party premises alone was insufficient. The Tribunal also rejected the invocation of an extended limitation period due to lack of evidence of suppression and upheld that reliance on presumptive findings without substantial corroborative evidence was inadequate. Ultimately, the demand based on the extended period was deemed time-barred, leading to the appeal's allowance. en-us Wed, 08 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Jan 2022 07:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417708 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, the Director of a manufacturing company, in a case concerning duty demand confirmation. The decision highlighted the necessity of concrete proof linking the appellant to alleged clandestine activities, emphasizing that evidence from third party premises alone was insufficient. The Tribunal also rejected the invocation of an extended limitation period due to lack of evidence of suppression and upheld that reliance on presumptive findings without substantial corroborative evidence was inadequate. Ultimately, the demand based on the extended period was deemed time-barred, leading to the appeal's allowance. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417708