https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74541 In a duty demand case, the department must prove by cogent evidence that the goods manufactured and cleared were the dutiable commodity alleged. Here, the demand failed because no cloth was seized, tested, or independently examined, and the record instead supported the appellants' consistent claim that they dealt only in dedhsuti. A statement attributed to Shri Ram Pratap was also rejected as unreliable, since it was unsupported by corroboration, contradicted by a later affidavit, and recorded by officers not authorised to take such statements for excise purposes. The impugned demand and lower orders were set aside. en-us Sun, 18 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:02:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74541 In a duty demand case, the department must prove by cogent evidence that the goods manufactured and cleared were the dutiable commodity alleged. Here, the demand failed because no cloth was seized, tested, or independently examined, and the record instead supported the appellants' consistent claim that they dealt only in dedhsuti. A statement attributed to Shri Ram Pratap was also rejected as unreliable, since it was unsupported by corroboration, contradicted by a later affidavit, and recorded by officers not authorised to take such statements for excise purposes. The impugned demand and lower orders were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Sun, 18 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74541