2005 (1) TMI 564 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand and penalty for manufacturing branded goods and clandestine removal without payment of duty.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the order confirming duty demand and penalty for manufacturing branded goods and clandestine removal without duty payment. The firm was denied SSI exemption for allegedly manufacturing branded goods during the disputed period. Penalty was imposed on the partner for assisting in clandestine removal. The firm was engaged in manufacturing domestic electronic appliances under the brand name 'Sunrise' and had trading premises in Delhi. Central Excise officers raided both premises and seized branded goods. Statements of partners and buyers were recorded during the investigation.

The appellants argued there was no evidence of manufacturing branded goods, as they manufactured goods under their own brand name 'Sunrise' and traded in electrical appliances. Invoices were presented to prove purchases from various dealers. The appellants contended that they were engaged in legitimate manufacturing and trading activities. The Revenue, however, supported the impugned order.

After considering both sides, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' contention. The record showed the appellants manufactured electrical appliances under the brand name 'Sunrise.' Goods found in the factory premises were detailed in the panchnama. Invoices presented by the appellants for purchased goods were not questioned, indicating their genuineness. Statements of the firm's partner confirmed legitimate manufacturing activities. The seized records did not show manufacturing or clandestine removal under another brand. Goods found at trading premises were also under the 'Sunrise' brand, with invoices supporting legitimate purchases.

Statements of witnesses were analyzed, with one witness confirming purchases under the 'Sunrise' brand. The other witness's statement did not provide evidence against the appellants. The Tribunal found no substantiated evidence of manufacturing or clandestine clearance of branded goods. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals of the appellants were allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding insufficient evidence to support the allegations of manufacturing branded goods and clandestine clearance. The impugned order was overturned, providing relief to the appellants in accordance with the law.