2018 (3) TMI 921 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 08/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003, as amended - retraction of statements - Held that - the owner of brand LEVANCHO , have categorically stated that they are the owners of the brand LEVANCHO and Mr. Deepak Poptani has got no concern or interest in the same. Further Mr. Deepak Poptani have admitted the sale of goods in cash and receipt of sale proceeds in cash. The facts are supported by documentary evidence and as such the so called retraction is of no help to the appellant. Further these retractions are by way of afterthought as no person of ordinary prudence while retracting his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, be negligent in despatching the same other than by recorded delivery/by speed post or registered post. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Manufacture and clearance of branded footwear, Alleged misuse of SSI exemption, Recovery of slips indicating clandestine clearance, Retraction of statements, Imposition of duty, interest, and penalty, Ownership of brand, Documentary evidence, Appeal against Order-in-Appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Leather Footwear, was suspected of manufacturing branded footwear of another brand and wrongly availing SSI exemption. During a search, officers found slips indicating clearance of footwear of a different brand, leading to a demand notice for duty recovery under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest and penalty for contravention of Central Excise Rules.

2. The appellant contested the allegations, claiming false evidence creation and retracted statements made under duress. They argued that stocks matched records, proving no clandestine production or removal. The appellant highlighted postal receipts of retraction, absence of buyer details on slips, and the familial ownership of both brands, challenging penalty imposition and evidence validity.

3. The Tribunal noted the recovery of slips from the appellant's premises, admissions by authorized signatories, and statements from the brand owner confirming ownership. Documentary evidence supported the Revenue's allegations, dismissing the appellant's retraction as an afterthought due to lack of proper dispatch method. The failure to explain the presence of incriminating slips further weakened the appellant's case.

4. The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, emphasizing the presence of documentary evidence, admissions by involved parties, and the lack of credibility in the appellant's retraction. The ownership of the brand, cash sales admission, and unexplained slip possession strengthened the Revenue's case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the duty recovery and penalty imposition.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, dismissing it and upholding the Order-in-Appeal, based on the established allegations, documentary evidence, and lack of credibility in the appellant's retraction statements. The judgment was pronounced on 13/02/2018 by Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD.