9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) relied upon. Department not even cited them as respondent. Held that- appeal by department against concurrent finding of lower authorities in favour of said person rejected. - E/480/2007-SM(BR.) - 100/2010-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 14-1-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri V.K. Saxena, Jt. CDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation offered is accepted. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent-company is said to have used the brand name of their sister concern and that they have wrongly availed the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 for such branded goods. In pursuance of show cause notice dated 30-7-2003, the Original Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 8,01,294/- along with inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CDR reiterates the grounds of appeal. 6.1 I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the re cords. No evidence of knowledge or intention on the part of these persons in relation to evasion by the company has been brought out. The Original Authority has dropped the proceedings against them. The Commissioner (Appeals) has concurred with the findings of the Original Authority with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Such logo was used by them in order to enhance marketability of the product but not with an intent to make the goods liable to confiscation or to evade duty which they have paid before issuance of the show cause notice. They were under the impression that they were entitled for exemption, therefore, they did not take Registration Certificate from the Department as required under Rules." 6.2 N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
