https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116109 Mere recovery of goods bearing different brand names was held insufficient to prove clandestine manufacture or wrongful availment of SSI exemption. The record showed that some seized goods were the appellants' own brand, while others were supported by invoices indicating purchase from the market or other traders, and those invoices were not discredited by examining the issuers. The seized documents and witness statements did not establish manufacture or clandestine removal of branded goods, nor corroborate the allegation of job-work production for another concern. As the alleged evasion was not proved by tangible evidence, the duty demand and equal penalties on the firm and partner were unsustainable. en-us Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:07:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116109 Mere recovery of goods bearing different brand names was held insufficient to prove clandestine manufacture or wrongful availment of SSI exemption. The record showed that some seized goods were the appellants' own brand, while others were supported by invoices indicating purchase from the market or other traders, and those invoices were not discredited by examining the issuers. The seized documents and witness statements did not establish manufacture or clandestine removal of branded goods, nor corroborate the allegation of job-work production for another concern. As the alleged evasion was not proved by tangible evidence, the duty demand and equal penalties on the firm and partner were unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116109