2011 (3) TMI 272 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate tribunal remands case for fair reevaluation

The appellate tribunal found merit in the department's arguments regarding the alleged suppression of brand names in goods sold by the appellants. The ... Brand name - The documents collected and statements recorded during the investigation clearly shows that the party has suppressed the brand name used by assessee in their products and cleared the goods in the guise of Hybro brand - As per the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of CCE, Raigad Vs. Ramply (I) Ltd. (2009 -TMI - 76074 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY), non-declaration of the use of others brand name despite having knowledge about the same, amounts to suppression - Hence appeal is allowed by way of remand in favour of Revenue. Issues Involved:Alleged suppression of brand names in goods sold by the appellants.Analysis:The department appealed against an order citing various grounds, including evidence from staff statements and correspondence between companies proving the use of a specific brand name. Documentary evidence confirmed regular supply of goods with a particular brand name. Physical stock of chains with the brand name was found, and separate accounts were maintained for different brands. Despite invoices indicating a different brand, goods were cleared under other brand names without disclosure. The department argued that non-declaration of the use of other brand names amounted to suppression, referencing a relevant court decision. The appellate tribunal found merit in the department's arguments and concluded that a remand was necessary for reevaluation of evidence by the lower appellate authority.The tribunal highlighted the need for a fresh decision based on a reexamination of documentary and oral evidence collected by the department. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate authority for a fair hearing to both sides before issuing a new order. Additionally, a cross-objection filed by the respondent was dismissed as it was deemed to be a response to the revenue's appeal rather than an independent objection.In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of alleged suppression of brand names in goods sold by the appellants. The tribunal found substance in the department's arguments and ordered a remand for a fresh decision based on a reevaluation of evidence. The importance of a fair hearing to both parties was emphasized, and a cross-objection was dismissed as it was considered a response to the revenue's appeal.