Proof of manufacture with power was not established, so duty, penalty and confiscation on steel furniture could not survive.

Duty demand, penalty and confiscation were unsustainable because the Department did not prove that the steel furniture cleared from the non-power unit had been manufactured from parts made with the aid of power at another unit. Gate entries, statements and the panchnama were treated as insufficient: the alleged admissions did not establish manufacture with power, the goods description was ambiguous, and the supporting material did not satisfactorily show transfer of power-made parts for assembly at the non-power unit. The Tribunal rejected the Collector's approach to proof in quasi-judicial proceedings and held that the tariff item was not attracted on the evidence presented.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand, penalty and confiscation were sustainable on the allegation that steel furniture cleared from the non-power unit was manufactured from parts made with the aid of power at another unit.

Analysis: The Department relied on a gate entry register, certain statements, and a panchnama to show that furniture parts were manufactured with the aid of power at one unit and transferred to the other. The evidence was found insufficient: the alleged admissions did not amount to an admission of manufacture with power, the gate entries were inconclusive, the description of the goods was ambiguous, and the supporting statements did not establish the Department's case. The record did not satisfactorily show that the non-power unit assembled furniture from power-made parts, and the Tribunal declined to accept the Collector's approach to proof in quasi-judicial proceedings.

Conclusion: The Department failed to establish that the furniture was manufactured in a manner attracting duty under the relevant tariff item, and the demand, penalty and confiscation could not stand.

---