TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm appellant No. l and imposed penalty on its partner appellant No. 2. The duty along with penalty has been confirmed against the firm appellant No. 1 by denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-97 for having indulged in the manufacture of branded goods during the period in dispute i.e. March, 1996 to December, 1997. Against appellant No. 2, penalty under Rule 209-A has been confirmed as he assisted the firm of which he was a partner during that period, in the clandestine removal of branded goods without payment of duty. 2.We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, we find that the firm is engaged in the manufacture of domestic electronic appliances i.e. electrical toaster,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 4.We have considered the respective contentions of both the sides and in our view, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants deserves to be accepted. We find from the record that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electrical appliances as detailed in the impugned order, under their brand name Sunrise. These goods were also found lying in their factory premises and the same had been detailed in Annexure A appended to the panchnama prepared on the spot on 5-12-94 by the officers. The other goods found lying in the factory premises had been detailed in Annexure B which were found to be electrical appliances such as Anjali Mixtu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the appellants under their own brand name 'Sunrise' were found lying which had been detailed in the Annexure A. The other goods found there had been detailed in Annexure B, and regarding the purchase of these goods, the appellants had produced the copies of invoices issued by the manufacturers/traders to them and correctness of the same as observed above, remains unchallenged on record. Appellant No. 2 in his statement had nowhere admitted the manufacture of the goods under the brand name of another person and clearance of the same in a clandestine manner by the firm, during the period in dispute. 6.We also find from the record that statements of only two witnesses were recorded by the officers. The first one is Pradeep Jain who is pa....