https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52041 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to set aside the order confirming duty demand and penalty, emphasizing the requirement for substantial evidence in proving serious charges like clandestine removal of premium grade Veneer. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as it relied on inferences rather than concrete proof, with the Tribunal noting the lack of affirmative evidence to establish wrongdoing. The case highlighted the importance of solid evidence in such matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:17:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52041 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to set aside the order confirming duty demand and penalty, emphasizing the requirement for substantial evidence in proving serious charges like clandestine removal of premium grade Veneer. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as it relied on inferences rather than concrete proof, with the Tribunal noting the lack of affirmative evidence to establish wrongdoing. The case highlighted the importance of solid evidence in such matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52041