https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755084 The appeal was filed 223 days late, but the delay was condoned as the respondent raised no objections. Upon reviewing the Tribunal's order in Excise Appeal No. 642 of 2006, it was determined that the Department's allegations of clandestine removal lacked substantial investigation and evidence. The Tribunal found the charge unsubstantiated and noted the significant delay in issuing the show-cause notice, making the demand unsustainable on both merits and limitation grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and granted consequential relief to the appellant, dismissing the appeal at the admission stage due to the absence of any substantial question of law. en-us Fri, 03 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jul 2024 07:49:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755084 The appeal was filed 223 days late, but the delay was condoned as the respondent raised no objections. Upon reviewing the Tribunal's order in Excise Appeal No. 642 of 2006, it was determined that the Department's allegations of clandestine removal lacked substantial investigation and evidence. The Tribunal found the charge unsubstantiated and noted the significant delay in issuing the show-cause notice, making the demand unsustainable on both merits and limitation grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and granted consequential relief to the appellant, dismissing the appeal at the admission stage due to the absence of any substantial question of law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755084