https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74256 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. en-us Fri, 17 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:36:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74256 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74256