9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice was issued. Later on, after issuance of the second show cause notice, the show cause notice dated 19.7.2013 has been dropped against the appellants. The appellants are manufacturing branded goods of others and subsequent notice has been issued on the basis of same investigation on 14.6.2016 is not sustainable - Reliance was placed in the case of NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AP [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Devika Enterprises for confiscation of the goods seized on 19th July 2013 on account of the branded goods manufactured and for clandestine removal of goods and to redeem the said goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty. Thereafter, the Revenue realised the mistake that M/s Devika Enterprises is not the manufacturer of the said goods and the manufacturer is only M/s B.M. Enterprises. Therefore, another Show Cause Notice dated 14.6.2016 was issued to M/s B.M. Enterprises and M/s Devika Enterprises to demand duty on seized goods from both the appellants and to impose penalty. The matter was adjudicated, demand of duty was confirmed on both the appellants and penalty equal to duty was also imposed on both the appellants. The said ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be held that brand name Savstar is owned by any other person. With regard to Ganak brand, it is his contention that the investigation was conducted at the end of the dealer who submitted that they are receiving goods in the brand name Ganak and DMT from one M/s Devika Enterprises and the appellant viz M/s B.M. Enterprises but there is no quantification i.e. how much quantity has purchased of Ganak brand from M/s B.M. Enterprises by the dealer. In that circumstances, in the absence of any quantification, the demand is not sustainable. Therefore, he prayed that on merits also, the Revenue have no case. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR supported the impugned order and submits that during the course of investigation, the appellant hide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same, hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant. 8. Therefore, we hold that the show cause notice dated 14.6.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside. In the result, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated pronounced in open Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
