Excise duty demand cannot rest on a bank declaration alone without evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal.

A declaration made to a bank, by itself, could not sustain an excise duty demand without supporting evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal did not decide the authenticity of the statement; it held that the revenue had no evidentiary basis for the levy. The reference application merely sought reconsideration of the appreciation of evidence, and such alleged misappreciation does not give rise to a referable question of law. The reference application was therefore rejected in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was competent to decide the authenticity of the statement furnished by the assessee to the bank or other authorities for the purpose of levy of excise duty, and whether the reference application disclosed any referable question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had not pronounced upon the authenticity of the statement furnished to the bank or other authority. Its finding was that the declaration made to the bank, by itself, could not justify a demand of duty without supporting evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal. As no such evidence was found, the application sought to reopen an appreciation of evidence. Mere mis-appreciation of evidence does not furnish a ground for reference.

Conclusion: The reference application did not disclose any substance and was rejected. The outcome was in favour of the assessee.

---