2010 (7) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned order, the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Adjudicating Authority has been dismissed. The Joint Commissioner, Faridabad by order dated 20-6-2008 had denied the SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 to the appellants on the ground that the brand name GLACIER used by the appellants belongs to another person and imposed duty to the tune of Rs. 11,88,824/- besides interest thereon and penalty of equal amount in addition to penalty of Rs. l lakh against Mohit Jain. 3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of packaged drinking water classifiable under Chapter 2201.19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the year 2002-2003, the appellants had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been placed on record in respect of the allegation that the brand name GLACIER either belonged to any other person or is being used by any other person. Mere statement by the Director of the Company cannot be the basis to hold that the appellants had been using the brand name belonging to another person. He further submitted that there was absolutely no suppression as such of any fact by the appellants. According to the learned Advocate, undisputedly matter relates to the period from August, 2002 to March, 2003 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 5-10-2007. Merely because Departmental persons visited the premises on 1-8-2006, is no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. 5. The DR on the other hand sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned by M/s. Glacier Refresh (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was pursuant to completion of investigation, the show cause notice dated 5-10-2007 came to be issued. 7. Once the appellants themselve have admitted the fact that at the relevant time, the brand name used by the appellants was owned by some other person, the question of Department leading any further evidence in this regard does not arise unless the assessee either disputes the statement in that regard or place before the authority any material which would reveal the statement to be either incorrect or doubtful. It was neither disputed that Mr. Mohit Jain had made the said statement nor the statement was retracted. In the back ground of this fact, it is difficult to accept the content....