https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53830 CESTAT, Bangalore held that a duty demand and penalties for alleged scrap removal could not stand without affirmative evidence linking the scrap to manufacture through mechanical working of metal. Mere reliance on annexures and a broad conclusion that the goods were scrap was insufficient, because the revenue had to prove the source of the scrap with clinching evidence and a clear factual finding. The extended period of limitation was also found inapplicable, as the presence of Central Excise officers in the factory undermined any allegation of suppression or clandestine removal. The appeal succeeded, the original order was set aside, and consequential relief followed. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:56:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53830 CESTAT, Bangalore held that a duty demand and penalties for alleged scrap removal could not stand without affirmative evidence linking the scrap to manufacture through mechanical working of metal. Mere reliance on annexures and a broad conclusion that the goods were scrap was insufficient, because the revenue had to prove the source of the scrap with clinching evidence and a clear factual finding. The extended period of limitation was also found inapplicable, as the presence of Central Excise officers in the factory undermined any allegation of suppression or clandestine removal. The appeal succeeded, the original order was set aside, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53830