9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er appellant No. 2. The duty along with penalty has been confirmed against the firm appellant No. 1 by denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-97 for having indulged in the manufacture of branded goods during the period in dispute i.e. March, 1996 to December, 1997. Against appellant No. 2, penalty under Rule 209-A has been confirmed as he assisted the firm of which he was a partner during that period, in the clandestine removal of branded goods without payment of duty. 2.We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, we find that the firm is engaged in the manufacture of domestic electronic appliances i.e. electrical toaster, emergency lights, mixture grinder, juicer, etc. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the correctness of the impugned order. 4.We have considered the respective contentions of both the sides and in our view, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants deserves to be accepted. We find from the record that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electrical appliances as detailed in the impugned order, under their brand name Sunrise. These goods were also found lying in their factory premises and the same had been detailed in Annexure A appended to the panchnama prepared on the spot on 5-12-94 by the officers. The other goods found lying in the factory premises had been detailed in Annexure B which were found to be electrical appliances such as Anjali Mixture Grinder, Washing Machine, Kishan Roti Maker, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sunrise were found lying which had been detailed in the Annexure A. The other goods found there had been detailed in Annexure B, and regarding the purchase of these goods, the appellants had produced the copies of invoices issued by the manufacturers/traders to them and correctness of the same as observed above, remains unchallenged on record. Appellant No. 2 in his statement had nowhere admitted the manufacture of the goods under the brand name of another person and clearance of the same in a clandestine manner by the firm, during the period in dispute. 6.We also find from the record that statements of only two witnesses were recorded by the officers. The first one is Pradeep Jain who is partner of M/s. Friends Battery Store, Chandni C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture and that these goods were in the process of manufacture at the time of visit of the officers and that the invoices produced by them showing the purchase of these goods from the market for trading, were not genuine. 7.In the light of discussion made above, in our view, the allegations against the appellants of having indulged in the manufacture and clandestine clearance of the branded goods and of having availed the benefit of SSI exemption wrongly, do not stand substantiated. Therefore, the impugned order passed against the appellants cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief as per law. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court on 13-1-2005) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
