Invoices alone are not conclusive proof of branded manufacture where no branded goods are shown in the record.

Invoices alone were insufficient to prove that the manufactured goods bore a brand name, because the record contained no evidence of branding on the goods, no seizure or investigation produced branded goods, and the matter had proceeded ex parte. On that basis, duty could not be sustained on the footing that branded goods were manufactured, and the finding to that effect was set aside in favour of the assessee. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as admissible in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be levied on goods alleged to be branded merely on the basis of invoices when the record did not show that the goods manufactured carried any brand name.

Analysis: The record contained no evidence that the goods manufactured bore a brand name or that any brand name was embossed on them. The invoice entries were held insufficient, by themselves, to conclusively establish manufacture of branded goods, particularly when the adjudication had proceeded ex parte and no seizure or investigation had produced goods showing a brand name.

Conclusion: Duty could not be sustained on the basis of the invoices alone, and the finding of branded manufacture was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief as admissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of evidence showing that the manufactured goods carried a brand name, invoices alone do not constitute conclusive proof to levy duty on the footing that branded goods were manufactured.

---