https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263145 Excise duty and penalty could not be sustained where the record lacked reliable evidence that the respondents manufactured branded goods under the disputed names. The seized goods, being of small value, did not by themselves prove manufacture, and the invoices relied on were found doubtful. The declaration under Rule 173B did not admit manufacture of goods under other brands; it stated that only the respondents' own brand was affixed. On that evidentiary basis, the Tribunal's factual finding in favour of the respondents was upheld and no interference was called for. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263145 Excise duty and penalty could not be sustained where the record lacked reliable evidence that the respondents manufactured branded goods under the disputed names. The seized goods, being of small value, did not by themselves prove manufacture, and the invoices relied on were found doubtful. The declaration under Rule 173B did not admit manufacture of goods under other brands; it stated that only the respondents' own brand was affixed. On that evidentiary basis, the Tribunal's factual finding in favour of the respondents was upheld and no interference was called for. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263145