2010 (5) TMI 550 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Classification - Notification No. 8/01-C.E., dated 1st March, 2001 - the authorities below failed to appreciate that the claim of the Department for the period subsequent to the year 2001-02 was denied by the appellants and there was no evidence whatsoever on record to justify the liability fastened upon the appellants under the impugned order - the appellants had no case in answer to the case put forth by the Department in relation to the manufacture of those branded goods with Omega brand - In the facts and circumstances which are on record, it is difficult to accept the contention on behalf of the appellants that the respondent had failed to establish the manufacture of branded goods with Omega brand by the appellants during the period after 2001-02 - Rather, there is a clear admission about such manufacture - Decided against the assessee

Issues:
1. Appeal against order confirming demand, interest, and penalty.
2. Manufacturing of branded juicer mixer grinder without registration.
3. Dispute over the claim of manufacturing branded goods.
4. Denial of manufacturing branded goods for a specific period.
5. Admission of supplying branded goods for a specific period.
6. Request for lenient view and payment of duty on branded goods.
7. Statement of proprietor admitting to selling branded goods.
8. Failure to establish non-manufacture of branded goods post-2001-02.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order confirming a demand, interest, and penalty related to the manufacturing of Juicer Mixer Grinder and three Jar grinders without registration. The appellants availed benefits under Notification No. 8/01-C.E., dated 1st March, 2001. The appeal stemmed from a show-cause notice issued after a search revealed the manufacturing and clearance of branded juicer mixer grinders under the brand name "Omega" without duty payment.

2. The appellant disputed the claim of manufacturing branded goods post-2001-02, arguing that there was no evidence to support the liability imposed. The advocate highlighted discrepancies in the investigation, show cause notice, and statements, emphasizing the lack of corroboration for the department's claims.

3. The Department relied on a Supreme Court decision to support its findings, contending that the materials on record justified the conclusions reached by the lower authorities. The appellant's argument of admitting manufacturing for a specific period but denying it for subsequent years was countered by the lack of such denial in the reply to the show cause notice.

4. The appellant's denial of supplying Omega brand Juicer Mixer Grinder for a specific period was noted, but it did not contest the manufacture of branded goods. The adjudicating authority recorded admissions of supplying branded goods during 2001-2002, with no denial for subsequent years, indicating a lack of dispute regarding manufacturing.

5. The proprietor's statement acknowledging the sale of branded goods and willingness to pay duty further supported the Department's case. The absence of any retraction of this statement strengthened the Department's position, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the clear admission of manufacturing branded goods with the Omega brand post-2001-02.

6. In conclusion, the failure to establish the non-manufacture of branded goods post-2001-02, coupled with admissions and statements supporting the Department's claims, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The decision upheld the impugned order confirming the demand, interest, and penalty, emphasizing the importance of consistent statements and evidence in legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →