Central excise duty demand fails where the cleared goods were not manufactured by the appellant.

Central excise duty demand could not be sustained where the cleared goods were not shown to be goods manufactured by the appellant. On the admitted facts, the clearances did not match the basis on which the demand was raised, and in the absence of manufacture of the goods in question, the duty liability failed. The demand was therefore held untenable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand could be sustained on the footing that the goods cleared by the appellant were manufactured goods, and whether the impugned demand was therefore liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The goods cleared by the appellant were not the goods manufactured by it. On the admitted facts, the clearance did not answer the basis on which the duty demand had been raised. In the absence of manufacture of the goods in question, the demand of central excise duty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The duty demand was not tenable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---