Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (4) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s in the Polythene boxes branded by M/s Luk India Ltd. Merely, packing of these assemblies does not amount to manufacture as there was no deeming provision during the relevant time. The appellants are not manufacturing the goods having brand name of third party. Therefore, the allegation against the appellants is not sustainable in the absence of any cogent evidence. The appellants are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003 and no demand is sustainable against them - penalties also not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/83-84,97-105/2012 - A/60270-60280/2019 - Dated:- 19-2-2019 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... brand name Luk which belongs to M/s Luk India Ltd., therefore, they are not entitled for SSI exemption. Consequently, they are liable to pay duty and M/s Eagle Glide Exim Pvt. Ltd is dealing the said goods is to be penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated against all the appellants and which was concluded against the appellants and duty is accordingly demanded alongwith interest and penalties on all the appellants were imposed. Against the said orders, the appellants are before us. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the manufacturers are not manufacturing any branded goods. Moreover, the Revenue relied on the statement of two employees of M/s Luk I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n during the course of investigation to ascertain the fact that whether these assemblies were having embossed the brand name LUK thereon or not? Therefore, the statement of these witnesses cannot be relied upon in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no evidence available on record to show that the job workers in question are manufacturing LUK brand, Clutch assembles. In that circumstances, demand against the manufacturers are not sustainable. Moreover, the packing activity has been undertaken on job works who were packing these assemblies in the Polythene boxes branded by M/s Luk India Ltd. Merely, packing of these assemblies does not amount to manufacture as there was no deeming provision during the relevant time. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates