https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106599 Duty demand could not be sustained solely against the appellant where the department's own statement referred to supply from several manufacturers and no investigation was made into the other named manufacturers; the record did not establish exclusive attribution of the clearances to the appellant, so the demand on that basis failed. The addition of the value of parts recovered from the appellant's premises was also unjustified because the proprietor claimed they were old parts manufactured before 1986, and that explanation was not examined before confirmation of demand. The impugned order was set aside and the appellant succeeded. en-us Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:21:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106599 Duty demand could not be sustained solely against the appellant where the department's own statement referred to supply from several manufacturers and no investigation was made into the other named manufacturers; the record did not establish exclusive attribution of the clearances to the appellant, so the demand on that basis failed. The addition of the value of parts recovered from the appellant's premises was also unjustified because the proprietor claimed they were old parts manufactured before 1986, and that explanation was not examined before confirmation of demand. The impugned order was set aside and the appellant succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106599