Excise duty demand on alleged branded goods failed for lack of reliable proof of manufacture and doubtful supporting invoices.

Excise duty and penalty could not be sustained where the record lacked reliable evidence that the respondents manufactured branded goods under the disputed names. The seized goods, being of small value, did not by themselves prove manufacture, and the invoices relied on were found doubtful. The declaration under Rule 173B did not admit manufacture of goods under other brands; it stated that only the respondents' own brand was affixed. On that evidentiary basis, the Tribunal's factual finding in favour of the respondents was upheld and no interference was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were shown to have manufactured branded goods under names other than their declared brand so as to justify the demand of excise duty and penalty, and whether the Tribunal's reversal of the demand called for interference.

Analysis: The record did not furnish tangible evidence that the branded goods bearing the disputed names were manufactured by the respondents in their factory. The seized goods were of a small value and, by themselves, did not establish manufacture of such goods by the respondents. The invoices relied upon for raising the demand were also found by the Tribunal to be of doubtful genuineness. The declaration filed under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not admit manufacture of goods under the disputed brands; on the contrary, it stated that the respondents affixed only their own brand and did not manufacture goods of any other brand.

Conclusion: The demand of duty and penalty was not sustainable, and the Tribunal's finding in favour of the respondents was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed as no infirmity was found in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and no question of law arose for consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand of excise duty based on alleged manufacture of branded goods cannot be sustained without reliable evidence proving manufacture, and doubtful documents or an inconsistent declaration are insufficient to displace the Tribunal's factual findings.

---