https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444582 The tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalty on the premises owner due to insufficient evidence linking him to the illegal manufacturing of unmanufactured tobacco. However, the penalty on the co-appellant was upheld, as his involvement in the illegal activities was confirmed through his admission and the introduction of a non-existent person for the lease agreement. The confiscation of goods was confirmed, allowing their release on redemption fine. The appeals were disposed of with the decision pronounced on 18/10/2023. en-us Wed, 18 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444582 The tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalty on the premises owner due to insufficient evidence linking him to the illegal manufacturing of unmanufactured tobacco. However, the penalty on the co-appellant was upheld, as his involvement in the illegal activities was confirmed through his admission and the introduction of a non-existent person for the lease agreement. The confiscation of goods was confirmed, allowing their release on redemption fine. The appeals were disposed of with the decision pronounced on 18/10/2023. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444582