9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents were manufacturing these goods i.e. under the brand names 'National', 'Omega' and 'Philips' etc. Held that:- The declaration as relied upon by the revenue, nowhere mentions that the respondents are producing goods under the brand names 'National', 'Omega' and 'Philips' etc. On the contrary, it is very categorically stated in the declaration that the respondents are affixing the brand name 'Sunrise' on all their goods - decision of tribunal sustained - Decided against Revenue. - Civil Appeal No(s). 4605-4606/2005 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2015 - Mr. A.k. Sikri and Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.K. Mullick, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mega' and 'Philips' etc. and were not paying excise duty thereon. In this show cause notice, it was further alleged that as per the recovery panchnama dated 05.12.1997, which was drawn on the basis of documents seized from the manufacturing unit as well as trading premises of the respondents, the value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondents was in the sum of ₹ 1,05,32,030.00 involving Central Excise duty of ₹ 19,64,020.25. It was also stated in the show cause notice that after the seizure of the aforesaid goods, the respondents themselves had filed declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules,1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) and even paid the excise duty in the sum of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner, which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 17.07.2003. Not satisfied with the outcome of this appeal the respondents approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The Tribunal has accepted the version of the respondents and allowed the appeal in its final decision dated 13.01.2005. Against that order, present appeal is preferred by the Department. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has primarily come to the conclusion, after analysing the entire evidence, that there was no tangible evidence on record to prove the manufacture of the aforesaid branded goods by the respondents in their factory premises. It is pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
