Central excise duty on purchased tooling was unsustainable where the appellant was not the manufacturer and exemption facts were unproven.

Central excise duty on tooling was held unsustainable because the record showed the tooling had been purchased under invoice from another manufacturer, and the appellant was not the manufacturer of the goods in question. The authorities had not properly examined the factual position before denying the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. As the factual basis for fastening duty liability was not established, no duty could be confirmed against the appellant in respect of the tooling, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty on tooling was sustainable where the appellant asserted that it had not manufactured the tooling in question and had purchased it from another manufacturer, thereby claiming benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E.

Analysis: The record showed that the tooling had been purchased under invoice from another manufacturer. The authorities below had not properly examined the factual position and had proceeded without due application of mind. On the material available, the appellant was not the manufacturer of the tooling in question.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was unsustainable, as no duty liability arose on the appellant in respect of the tooling.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty cannot be confirmed on a person who is not the manufacturer of the goods in respect of which liability is alleged, particularly where the factual basis for denying exemption is not established on the record.

---