2010 (5) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellants was dismissed. The said appeal was filed against the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Ambala on 23rd Jan., 2004, whereby the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the demand of Rs. 96,990/- alongwith interest thereon and had imposed equal amount of penalty. 2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Juicer Mixer Grinder and three Jar grinders classifiable under Chapter Heading 8509.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 during the period from 2001 to July, 2003. The appellants were not registered with the Department and were availing benefit of Notification No. 8/01-C.E., dated 1st March, 2001. Pursuant to the search carried out by the Officers of the Central Excise Department, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the authorities below. 5. Though it has been argued on behalf of the appellants that in the course of hearing of the matter before the adjudicating authority, the appellants have admitted the fact that during the period of 2001-02 the appellants had admitted the claim of the Department regarding manufacture of the branded goods, they had specifically denied such claim for the subsequent period and that no evidence in that regard has been submitted by the Department, the fact remains that so-called admission and denial for subsequent period was not made by the party in reply to the show cause notice. In fact, the department had issued a show cause notice clearly alleging that in the course of the investigation, it was found that a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ra 6 merely denies the fact of supply of Mixer Juicer Grinder of Omega brand. It no where discloses denial of the fact of manufacture of branded juicer mixer grinder with Omega brand. That apart, in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority, there was clear admission about such manufacture for the period 2001-02. At the same time, there was no denial of the said fact for the subsequent period. The adjudicating authority in relation to the said admission during the proceedings before him has recorded thus :- "10. The party was granted personal hearing in the case which was attended by Shri B.S. Jaspal, Advocate and Shri Bhupinder Singh, Prop., on 25-11-2003. They reiterated the facts already mentioned in their written reply d....