9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sh. S.K. Bansal, DR ORDER Per Anil Choudhary: The issue in this appeal is, whether the SSI benefit is rightly denied to the appellants; and secondly, whether the valuation adopted by Revenue for valuing the goods cleared by the appellants is correct and justified. 2. The appellant, M/s. Esquire Electrovision Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of DVD and other electronic items falling under CTH 8404 and 8521 of CTH using BESTON-S brand. Acting on intelligence, Revenue conducted search on 20.08.2011 at the three premises as follows:- (i) M/s. Esquire Electrovision Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Beston Eletrovision Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) and M/s. Beston Sky Vision Pvt. Ltd.; belonging to brothers and close relatives of the appellant, Balram Nathani (mentioned in the show cause notice). During the course of search in the premises of the appellant, its Director, Shri Balram Nathani, informed that they have stopped their manufacturing activities since June 2011. Further, before May 2011 they were engaged in manufacturing DVD, CFL inverters and inverter with brand name of Beston and trading of multimedia speakers. He further informed that, they were engaged in the business o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f retail sale of electronic items like DVD/VCD players, fans, mobile etc. After seeing invoice no. RT 4693 dated 15/10/2009 and RT 04856 dated 23.02.2010, issued by M/s Esquire Electrovision Private Ltd, New Delhi appellant, he confirmed the genuineness of the invoices and further confirmed that he received the goods under those invoices with the logo of BESTON-S which was the same as printed on both the invoices. He further stated that they were procuring the goods from the appellants since last 34 years. Further, he stated that they have not purchased any good since March 2011 from the appellants. 6. The proprietor of another retailer, M/s Vishnu Electronics, East of Kailash, New Delhi 65, Shri Bachchiram, on enquiry stated that, he was also engaged in the retail sale of electronic items and after seeing invoice number RT 5457 dated 29.03.2011 issued by the Appellant confirmed the genuineness and receipt of goods with BESTON logo. He further stated that he had been purchasing the goods for the last 34 years from the appellant with BESTON-S logo only. 7. Inquiry was also made with the manufacturer of packing material, M/s. Art Maker and its authorised person, Shailen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red 25.5.2005 1390714 9 BESTON 1344 Market Road, Udyamproor, Ernakulam, Distt. Kerala. Opposed 4.10.2005 9. It appeared to Revenue that the application of the appellant for registration of Trademark had failed. It further appeared that the appellant is manufacturing and clearing goods under trademark of another and accordingly it was proposed to deny the SSI exemption. Further, it appeared to Revenue that the appellant was required to disclose the MRP and pay duty under Section 4A of the Act, which they have failed to do. Accordingly, the Authority verified the MRP of similar products from the market and adopted the retail sale price of branded goods like Philips, Samsung etc. for the purpose of valuation and adopted the highest MRP of ₹ 3790/-. 10. Accordingly, vide show cause notice dated 09/07/2012 relating to the period April 2007 to June 2011 (invoking the extended of limitation), it was proposed to demand Central excise duty of ₹ 51,73,623/- involved on the goods cleared by the appellant during the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity which also had brand name BESTON-S on them. 15. The ld. counsel states that, the facts in the present appeal are similar as of Shri Balram Nathani, who was originally operating as a proprietor using the brand name BESTON-S and the said business was subsequently succeeded by the company floated by him and his family members, appellant herein. 16. So far as the issue of valuation is concerned, the learned counsel has stated that, adopting the MRP of an international brand as compared to a local brand, which has a range of only 200 to 300 kms. is wholly irrational and unjustified and accordingly not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. The Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that, the Adjudicating Authority has conceded in his adjudication order that the valuation proposed in the show cause notice is not correct and, therefore, he relied on the retail sale price available on the website in the name of BESTON-S which was ₹ 2350/-. In addition, the inquiry was also conducted for the price of similar goods which indicated the price as ₹ 1350/-. In view of the above, the ld. Adjudicating Authority has reduced the demand from S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
