https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52657 The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient evidence of non-duty paid clearance of branded beedies. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to substantiate claims with concrete evidence or corroborative documentation. The statement by a key witness regarding loose biris, which are not subject to Central Excise duty, did not prove illicit removal of branded beedies. Consequently, the duty amount, penalty, and interest initially set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) remained unchanged, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52657 The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient evidence of non-duty paid clearance of branded beedies. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to substantiate claims with concrete evidence or corroborative documentation. The statement by a key witness regarding loose biris, which are not subject to Central Excise duty, did not prove illicit removal of branded beedies. Consequently, the duty amount, penalty, and interest initially set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) remained unchanged, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52657