9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE after holding that they did not clear the goods under the brand names of another person. Ld. JDR, has contended that the respondents cleared the goods during the period in dispute under the brand names, BEW , NATIONAL , S S and LECO and supplied the same to M/s. BEW Auto Parts, M/s. Lamba Engg. Corpn., M/s. National Engg. Works and M/s. National Engg. Corporation and that the statements of their representatives had been wrongly ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals). He has also contended that the affidavits of the representatives of these firms were filed after a lapse of more than two years denying the receipt of the branded goods from the respondents, and had been wrongly relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) without verify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and M/s. National Engg. Corpn. This statement was never retracted by him at any stage. His statement finds corroboration from the statements of Shri Kamal Sharma, Power of Attorney holder of M/s. BEW Auto Parts, Shri Trilok Lamba, Proprietor of M/s. Lamba Engg. Corpn., Shri Ved Prakash Lamba, Proprietor of M/s. National Engg. Works and Shri Ashok Lamba, Power of Attorney holder of M/s. National Engg. Corpn., who have consistently deposed of having received the goods from the respondents under the above said brand names. None of these persons had ever retracted his statement, at any stage. In the face of their specific statements, which had remained un-retracted, the Commissioner (Appeals), in our view, could not place any reliance on their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Counsel about the non-supply of the copies of the statements resulting in non-filing of the reply to the show cause notice by the respondents cannot be accepted. The respondents had ample time to file reply the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority, but they never did so for the reasons best known to them. 6. From the evidence brought on record, it is amply proved that the respondents had, during the period in question, cleared the goods under the brand names of another persons and as such, were not entitled to avail the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Order-in-Original of the adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
