https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436098 The court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that central excise duty cannot be demanded based on installed capacity alone without evidence of unrecorded manufacture or clearance. The court found the allegations of clandestine removal unsupported by tangible evidence and invalidated the invocation of the extended period of limitation. Penalties imposed were deemed arbitrary as there was no proof of intent to evade duty. The appellant's appeal was successful, with the court setting aside previous orders and answering substantial legal questions in favor of the appellant. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Apr 2023 08:57:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436098 The court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that central excise duty cannot be demanded based on installed capacity alone without evidence of unrecorded manufacture or clearance. The court found the allegations of clandestine removal unsupported by tangible evidence and invalidated the invocation of the extended period of limitation. Penalties imposed were deemed arbitrary as there was no proof of intent to evade duty. The appellant's appeal was successful, with the court setting aside previous orders and answering substantial legal questions in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436098