https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336142 Excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be sustained without credible evidence of manufacture and supporting factory infrastructure. Where the record fails to show machinery, a factory, or any actual manufacturing facility, the duty demand falls for want of proof of excisable production. A consequential penalty on a co-appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also fails once the principal duty demand is unsustainable. The adjudication was set aside in entirety, leaving no surviving duty or penalty liability. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336142 Excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be sustained without credible evidence of manufacture and supporting factory infrastructure. Where the record fails to show machinery, a factory, or any actual manufacturing facility, the duty demand falls for want of proof of excisable production. A consequential penalty on a co-appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also fails once the principal duty demand is unsustainable. The adjudication was set aside in entirety, leaving no surviving duty or penalty liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336142