Transport GR entries alone cannot sustain duty demand without independent proof of receipt and manufacture using the goods.

Mere mention of an assessee as consignee in transport GRs is insufficient to sustain a duty demand unless supported by independent evidence showing actual receipt of duty-free billets and their use in manufacture. The Revenue relied on GR entries and an allegation that the billets were diverted for producing M.S. flats and bars, but no corroborative material proved receipt or use by the assessee. Following an earlier Tribunal view on similar facts, the duty demand was held unsustainable for want of evidence, and the impugned order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty could be sustained on the basis of GRs recovered from transporters showing the assessee as consignee, in the absence of independent evidence that the billets were received and used in the manufacture of the final products.

Analysis: The Revenue's case rested on GRs indicating the assessee's name as consignee and on the allegation that billets cleared without duty were used by the assessee for manufacture of M.S. flats and bars. No independent evidence was shown to establish actual receipt of the billets by the assessee or their use in the manufacture of the final product. The factual matrix was found to be on par with an earlier Tribunal decision where similar allegations based only on GR entries were held insufficient.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable for want of evidence, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld as the Revenue failed to establish receipt of duty-free billets and their use in manufacture by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere mention of a party's name in transport documents is insufficient to sustain a duty demand unless supported by independent evidence proving receipt of goods and their use in manufacture.

---