9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that raw materials as well as packing materials bearing the brand names were supplied by DTPL which were used for manufacture and packing of CFL at the various premises - it is evident that DTPL is to be considered as manufacturer of the CFL made at the various premises - Accordingly, DTPL will be liable for payment of duty on the quantity manufactured at the various premises - demand upheld. SSI exemption - brand names - N/N. 8/2006 - Held that: - The SSI notification specifically denies the benefit of the notification to goods cleared bearing the brand name of other persons. The appellant has nowhere claimed that the brand names affixed on the CFL cleared by them were belonging to them. The brand names itself suggest that they belong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn premises of M/s Achiever International were also seized. Show cause notice dated 29.01.2007 was issued proposing confiscation of the seized goods and vide the order dated 29.03.2010, the Assistant Commissioner ordered confiscation of the seized goods and allowed the same for redemption of payment of redemption fine and penalty. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order dated 13.03.2011 upheld the confiscation. This order is challenged before us in the present appeals. 3. After completion of investigation show cause notice dated 09.06.2008 was issued alleging clandestine clearance of goods by DTPL and demand of Central Excise duty involved in such goods. This show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious objection to the failure to observe the principals of natural justice. v) He submitted that the demand is based on loose slips but none of the relied upon documents have been supplied to the appellant to defend their case. vi) He also submitted that the appellants had sought the cross examination of various persons whose statements have been used as evidence against them but the adjudicating authority has not permitted the cross-examination of any of the persons. This involved violation of principles of natural justice. vii) The quantification adopted by the adjudicating authority for arriving at the demand is not known. It is also not evident what is the basis for such quantification either from show cause notice or f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eja, Supervisor of the DTPL premises at WZ-68/1, Titrapur, New Delhi also confirmed similar manufacture of CFL for DTPL at the above address. On the basis of documentary evidence as well as the statements of Supervisors, it was further established by Revenue that such CFL was manufactured by them baring various brand names such as LEUCI JAPAL, SAERA, HANS, HUAQIANG, ESAVER, SKN and JEWEL. Various documents in the form of kachha parchies, note books, diary, ledger etc. were recovered from the various premises in which the quantity of CFL manufactured at the various premises were recorded. Sh. Anuj Mahajan, Director of DTPL was interrogated and his statements were recorded on various dates in which he admitted all the facts and also the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi where test and repair of these goods are carried out and repacked before sending them to the buyers. From the above, it is evident that DTPL is to be considered as manufacturer of the CFL made at the various premises. Accordingly, DTPL will be liable for payment of duty on the quantity manufactured at the various premises. 11. Next, we consider the claim of the appellant for SSI benefit. The CFL has been manufactured in various premises. But all such goods are reconsidered as manufactured by one person only i.e. DTPL. The appellant has claimed that they will be entitled to SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/2006 at the relevant time. However, it is on record that all the goods manufactured by them were cleared bearing the brand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice. Further, he has recorded that the appellants have not disputed the duty worked out on the basis of evidence but has simply denied the quantum of duty. After careful consideration of the evidence on record, we dismiss this ground raised by the appellant for the reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority as above. 13. The appellants have also raised the grounds of cross-examination of various witnesses was not permitted by the adjudicating authority. Upon perusal of record, we find that such a request for cross-examination has never been raised before the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the same has not been discussed by him in the impugned order. Consequently, we find that this ground raised is not tenable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
