2007 (6) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see (one of the appellants) a demand of duty to the extent of over Rs. 39 lakhs for the period 1998-2002 and also imposed on them equal amount of penalty. The authority also imposed a penalty on the Managing Director of the company (the other appellant). Against that decision, the appellants preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed the assessee and the Managing Director to predeposit Rs. 39,08,290/- and Rs. 4 lakhs respectively for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. 3. The subsequent modification petition filed by the appellants was rejected by the appellate authority. Having found no evidence of pre-deposit, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals for want of compliance with Section 35F i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o those goods manufactured and cleared by SSI units which were affixed with brand-name belonging to another person. Before the original authority, the assessee submitted that they had already obtained registration with the Registering Authority under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in respect of some of the brand-names in question and that, in respect of some other brand-names, their application for such registration was pending before the said authority. It was, further, submitted that it was only after 2002 that they re-assigned some of the brand-names to the original owners. Apparently, these submissions did not appeal to the authority, which held against the assessee on all counts. Before the appellate authority, the assessee and their Managi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve allowed the assessee to cross-examine the remaining 13 traders (leaving out one trader whose original statement stands accepted by the assessee). The authority was, virtually, denying natural justice to the assessee to the said extent. This vice of the adjudication proceedings should have been taken note of by the first appellate authority, but this did not happen in this case. We are inclined to remand this case to the original authority for the ends of justice, having regard to the fact that, in the view taken by us, the lower appellate authority would have had no option but to remand the case. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the case is remitted to the original authority for fresh adjudication in acc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X