Non-manufacture allegations cannot defeat refund where records support production, and contingent undervaluation demands are unsustainable.

Recovery of duty or denial of refund cannot rest on uncorroborated allegations of non-manufacture when contemporaneous records, departmental verification, factory visits, DG set logs and pollution-control inspections support actual production. On that evidence, the assessee was treated as a manufacturer during the relevant period and entitled to refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE. The Tribunal also rejected contingent undervaluation demands, holding that a tax demand cannot be sustained on a future event and that valuation allegations were inconsistent with the no-manufacture case, especially where relationship, mutuality of interest and the basis for valuation rules were not established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had manufactured the goods during the relevant period and were entitled to refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE; (ii) Whether the demands based on alleged undervaluation and contingent revival could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants had manufactured the goods during the relevant period and were entitled to refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE.

Analysis: The demand was founded on an investigation conducted at the end of another Commissionerate, alleging that the farmers from whom raw material was allegedly procured were non-existent and that no manufacture had taken place. The Tribunal noted that the investigation was not carried out at the appellants' end and that the record contained supporting material such as toll-barrier entries, departmental verification of consignments, factory visits, DG set records, pollution-control and other departmental inspections, and earlier departmental reports indicating manufacturing activity. In the absence of concrete evidence contradicting these records, the allegation that the appellants had not manufactured goods was treated as unsupported.

Conclusion: The appellants were held to be manufacturers during the relevant period and were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 56/2002-CE; the refund could not be recovered on the footing that no manufacture had taken place.

Issue (ii): Whether the demands based on alleged undervaluation and contingent revival could be sustained.

Analysis: In the connected appeals, earlier show cause notices on undervaluation had already been dropped, yet the impugned orders proceeded on the premise that such demands could revive if the no-manufacture allegations failed. The Tribunal held that a demand cannot rest on a future contingent event and that the allegations of undervaluation were inconsistent with the simultaneous assertion that there was no manufacture. The absence of clear findings on relationship, mutuality of interest, and the basis for invoking valuation rules also weighed against the Revenue.

Conclusion: The contingent and undervaluation-based demands were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, as the Revenue failed to establish the foundational allegation of non-manufacture or any sustainable basis for recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery of duty or denial of refund cannot be sustained on uncorroborated assumptions of non-manufacture where contemporaneous records and departmental verification support actual manufacture, and a contingent tax demand dependent on a future event is impermissible.

---