https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764001 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal, setting aside the Central Excise duty demand on scrap and waste clearances from April 2008 to March 2013. The tribunal held that the department failed to prove with concrete evidence that the scrap arose from cenvated capital goods, relying instead on presumptions from a verification report. The appellant's categorical stand that scraps originated from non-cenvated capital goods was not properly rebutted. The tribunal emphasized that presumptions cannot substitute proof for confirming duty demands, and the burden lies with the department to establish facts. Associated penalties and interest under Section 11AC and Rule 27 were also set aside. en-us Tue, 04 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jan 2025 12:24:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764001 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal, setting aside the Central Excise duty demand on scrap and waste clearances from April 2008 to March 2013. The tribunal held that the department failed to prove with concrete evidence that the scrap arose from cenvated capital goods, relying instead on presumptions from a verification report. The appellant's categorical stand that scraps originated from non-cenvated capital goods was not properly rebutted. The tribunal emphasized that presumptions cannot substitute proof for confirming duty demands, and the burden lies with the department to establish facts. Associated penalties and interest under Section 11AC and Rule 27 were also set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764001