9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below. In the face of this evidence, the retracted alleged confessional statement of Shri Jatinder Singh, Proprietor of the appellant s firm could not be given much credence. The authorities below have wrongly accepted the said statement of Shri Jatinder Singh as substantial evidence. Apart from this, even otherwise legally it cannot be concluded that the appellants were using the brand name of another person. The brand name ELEX , according to the Department belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works. But Shri Jatinder Singh who is the proprietor of the appellant s firm, is one of the partners in that firm. Being co-owner of the brand name in the above said firm, he could not be said to had used the brand name of another person, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacture of flat knitting machines. Being a SSI unit, they had been availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 as amended and subsequent SSI Notifications including No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98. But they were found using the brand name "ELEX" on those machines which belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works and as such they were not entitled to avail the benefit of SSI notifications. The goods lying in the factory were seized by the Officers. They were, accordingly, served with two show cause notices, one raising the duty demand of Rs. 79,956/- for the period 1-4-98 to 16-9-98 and imposition of penalty and another proposing confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty. After getting their reply, the Adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of confusion under which he made earlier statement. Therefore, his earlier statement which stood retracted could not be taken as substantial piece of evidence for bringing home the allegations of having used the brand name of another person as set out in the show cause notice. Rather his statement was to be taken only as light weight piece of evidence needing independent corroboration before relying upon the same, in view of the ratio of law laid down in Manindra Chandra Dey v. CEGAT, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 192 wherein it has been so observed regarding confessional statement, by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. 5. We do not find any oral or documentary evidence on the record lending corroboration to the retracted confessional statement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of another person. The brand name "ELEX", according to the Department belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works. But Shri Jatinder Singh who is the proprietor of the appellant's firm, is one of the partners in that firm. Being co-owner of the brand name in the above said firm, he could not be said to had used the brand name of another person, in the manufacture and clearance of the goods by him in his individual capacity. He cannot be legally said to be running another firm of M/s. Elex Industries, as single person cannot constitute any firm under the law. Therefore, being already co-owner of the brand name, he was competent to use the same. 7. In light of the discussion made above, neither the benefit of SSI exemption Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
