9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4092/16/EB - Dated:- 29-11-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran Member (Judicial) and Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri S.P. Mathew, Advocate for the appellant Shri S. Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are preferred against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/182-183/05 dated 22.03 7005. 2 Briefly stated, the issue involved in the case is that a show-cause notice dated 16.12.1992 was issued to M/s Bhide Sons Pvt Ltd., who were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz Reflux Valves and Gear Boxes failing under C.H. no. 84.81 and 84.83 of CETA, 1985. It was alleged that they had not only manufactured goods on their own but also manufactured said excisable goods bearing brand na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw passed the Order-in-Original wherein the demand of ₹ 2,26,089.64 was confirmed against M/s. Bhide Sons Pvt Ltd. and penalty of ₹ 25,000/- under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and imposed and ordered recovery of interest under Section 11AB. The redemption fine of ₹ 25,000/- was imposed on M/s. Bhide Sons Pvt. Ltd. The penalty of ₹ 10,000/- had been imposed on Shri C.R. Bhide, joint Managing Director of M/s. Bhide Sons Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 209A of the Rules. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellants preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after considering the submissions made original is correct. 4. Learned Counsel submits as under:- a. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 2013 (294) ELT 353 and 2010 (20) STR 705 (All), refers. e. In the investigation conducted by the Deptt. suspecting that the Appellants affixed the brand name CUSA on the Gear Boxes and therefore ineligible exemption, no questions were asked about the usage of the said brand name to Shri C.R. Bhide and T.V. Apte, Director and Supervisor respectively of the Appellants, who were the only persons questioned from Appellants' side. f. Finally, the Ld. Original Authority records an adverse finding in Para 14 of his order by relying on circumstantial evidence that since another manufacturer namely M/s. Arjun Wadkar Consolidate Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had affixed the nameplate CUSA in their factory, Appellants also might have fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctly pointed out by both sides, the issue that arises in this case is whether the main appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption notification number 175/96 or otherwise. 7. On perusal of records, we find that the issue that is contested before us is only in respect of the gearboxes manufactured by the main appellant. is a case of the revenue that these gearboxes were affixed with a brand name CUSA', while it is a case of the main appellant that the nameplate was affixed by one Shri Kachare at godown away from their factory. It is also the case of the main appellant that Shri Kachare was employee of CUSA Engineering Private Limited and was collecting the gearboxes from their factory premises and undertaking the activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is rightly observed by the adjudicating authority that Shri Kachare's deposition are not with regards M/s. Bhide Sons Pune on the contrary Shri Palkar has categorically stated that the goods were directly dispatched to the customers from the premises of the job worker. There is no dispute that the goods were dispatched without name plate and M/s. BASL have nor brought anything on the record even during cross examination of Shri Kachare, on whose statement they mainly relied upon saying that M/s. BASL, Pune are not the manufacture. As regards the reliance placed on statement of Shri A.D. Arjunwadkar, M.D. of M/s. Arjunwadkar Consolidated Engg. Pvt. Ltd. one of the co-noticees I find that if similar goods have been manufactured from two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
