2017 (4) TMI 29 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - Held that - It is recorded that the respondents had no sales of such amplifiers in the past. The statements which were retracted could not be basis for confirmation of duty demand. It is clear that no stickers with brand name were recovered during the visit by the officers as is evident from the panchnama - It is also categorically submitted by the respondents that they had never manufactured broad band amplifiers and hence the question of clearing branded amplifiers did not arise. They have submitted receipts for receiving these amplifiers - based on 105 pieces of saw filter modulator with brand of purportedly of another person, the Department demanded duty on all the goods cleared for past 4 years considering them as cleared with brand name. We find no justification for such extrapolation which is nothing but presumptive demand - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order dated 26-2-2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-II.
- Allegation of manufacturing goods with brand names of another person without payment of duty.
- Contesting findings based on retracted statements and lack of evidence.
- No sales history of certain goods, absence of brand name stickers, and lack of evidence for manufacturing specific items.
- Dismissal of the appeal by Revenue.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals by Revenue against a common impugned order dated 26-2-2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-II. The main issue revolves around the allegation that M/s. A.K. Electronics, the main respondent, were manufacturing goods with brand names of another person and clearing them without paying the required Central Excise duty. The original authority had confirmed a demand of &8377; 22,97,366/- on the main respondent along with penalties and confiscation of seized goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and allowed the appeal of the respondents, leading to the Revenue's appeal against this decision.

During the proceedings, the Revenue contended that the demand against the main respondent was justified based on the recovery of branded goods in their premises. The Revenue also highlighted retracted statements and insufficient evidence provided by the respondents to support their claim regarding certain items. However, upon review, it was observed that the respondents had no sales history of the specific goods, no brand name stickers were found during verification, and the respondents denied manufacturing certain items, for which they provided receipts and relevant documents. The Department's extrapolation of duty demand based on a specific set of items was deemed unjustified and presumptive.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's appeal did not present any legal or factual basis to overturn the decision made in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result, the appeals filed by Revenue were dismissed, upholding the decision in favor of the respondents. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 28-10-2016, providing clarity on the issues raised and the reasoning behind the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.