9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment has alleged that there was the appellants is a partnership firm with Sh. Nathu Ram Goel, Sh. Sushil Kumar Goel and Madan Gopal as its partners. They are selling their goods to M/s. SPEL which also have Sh. Nathu Ram Goel and Sh. Sushil Kumar Goel as Directors. - Held that: - nothing was brought on record which would show that the price charged by the appellants from SEPL was obviously different from those charged from other buyers. Besides, the department could not show mutuality of interest or the money flow back between the different entities in question to establish that they are related concerns. Hence, there is no infirmity in the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) on this count. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of these notification, and that the valuation of goods cleared to their related person M/s. SEPL was also not done as per valuation Rules. Accordingly, two show cause notices were issued. In adjudication proceedings, the adjudicating authority, vide order dt. 05.12.2006 confirmed the two demands of ₹ 48,78,450/- and ₹ 5,55,708/- by invoking extended period of limitation along with interest and imposed penalty of equivalent amounts on the appellants. 2. Aggrieved from the order of adjudicating authority, the appellants went in an appeal wherein Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of adjudicating authority on merits. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P) Limited., Vs CCE Indore - 2005(188)ELT3(SC) wherein it has been held that:- SSI Exemption Brand/trade name used on goods meant for captive consumption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. Exemption available only to goods which did not bear a brand/trade name of another clause (4) ibid does not state that exemption is lost only in respect of such goods as reach the market - Goods manufactured for captive consumption, not an exception. Para 5 of the judgement supra is reproduced below;- Clause 4 of the Notification is unambiguous and clear. It specifically states that the exemption contained in the Notification shall apply to specific goods which bear a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person. It is settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods bear a brand/trade name of another. 5. Once a finding is given that the goods bear the brand name of another, the SSI exemption is not attracted and the value of clearances of such branded goods cannot be added to arrive at the aggregate value of clearances. 6. On the second issue regarding the alleged undervaluation, the department has alleged that there was the appellants is a partnership firm with Sh. Nathu Ram Goel, Sh. Sushil Kumar Goel and Madan Gopal as its partners. They are selling their goods to M/s. SPEL which also have Sh. Nathu Ram Goel and Sh. Sushil Kumar Goel as Directors. However, nothing was brought on record which would show that the price charged by the appellants from SEPL was obviously different from those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
