Duty demand failed where supply was linked to multiple manufacturers and recovered parts were claimed to be pre-1986 old stock.

Duty demand could not be sustained solely against the appellant where the department's own statement referred to supply from several manufacturers and no investigation was made into the other named manufacturers; the record did not establish exclusive attribution of the clearances to the appellant, so the demand on that basis failed. The addition of the value of parts recovered from the appellant's premises was also unjustified because the proprietor claimed they were old parts manufactured before 1986, and that explanation was not examined before confirmation of demand. The impugned order was set aside and the appellant succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether duty demand could be sustained solely against the appellant when the statement referred to supply from several manufacturers and no investigation was made in respect of the other alleged manufacturers; (ii) whether the value of parts recovered from the appellant's premises could be added to the demand when they were claimed to be old parts manufactured prior to 1986.

Issue (i): whether duty demand could be sustained solely against the appellant when the statement referred to supply from several manufacturers and no investigation was made in respect of the other alleged manufacturers.

Analysis: The statement relied upon by the department named more than one manufacturer said to be supplying goods with the brand name. The demand against the appellant was founded on the premise that the goods cleared by the brand owner were manufactured by the appellant. No investigation was carried out in respect of the other manufacturers referred to in the statement, and the record did not establish exclusive attribution of the clearances to the appellant.

Conclusion: The duty demand against the appellant on this basis was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the value of parts recovered from the appellant's premises could be added to the demand when they were claimed to be old parts manufactured prior to 1986.

Analysis: The appellant's proprietor stated that the recovered parts were old and had been manufactured prior to 1986. This explanation was not considered by the Revenue before confirming the demand.

Conclusion: The addition of value on this count was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appellant succeeded in the appeal.

---