9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - In the instant appeal, the adjudicating authority has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 73,632.49 (Basic) and Rs. 3,681.62 (Special) for the financial year 1988-89 and has imposed personal penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that during the said financial year, they manufactured and removed cosmetics under brand name "Nesme" through their sole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the bills and sale register of the appellants' firm, 95% of the sales were made to the said firm and only 5% were directly sold at the factory gate. After due adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise held that M/s. Quality Marketing is a related firm/person of the appellant within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the Act and confirmed the demand. 3. We have heard Shri S.K. Roy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the partner in the sole selling firm is wife of main partner of the manufacturing firm and the various incriminating records recovered from the business as well as from the residential premises indicating towards fact that a close relation between the two firm exists. It is also evident from the impugned order that the 5% factory gate-sell in which the appellants claimed to have given a same q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll scale exemption limit by selling the goods by their own related people at a high commission of 30%. The reference has also been made by the adjudicating authority to the fact that though the appellants claimed that the agreement was cancelled on 2-6-1987, the stamp paper for the same for the cancellation agreement was purchased by the appellants on 14-4-1986 itself. As per the facts on records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
