TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was during the relevant period, availing SSI exemption. 2. The appellants factory was visited by Central Excise officers on 1-3-2001 and various checks and verifications were conducted. It was witnessed that the goods bearing brand name of other persons "needle folds" belonging to M/s. Milap Steel Industries were being packed and 12189 card board boxes containing the goods bearing the said name were seized. Separate proceedings were initiated against the appellants culminating into passing of an order confiscating the goods and imposing penalty. The said dispute is not subject matter of present appeals. 3. On the above basis, Revenue entertained a view that all the past clearances made by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the brand name of 'needle fold' was got recorded by the officers under threat. It is also seen that statement of Shri Gaurav Arora partner of M/s. Milap Steel Industries was also recorded on 1-3-2001, wherein he stated that they had not transferred or permitted any unit to use their brand name 'needle fold'. However, the appellate authority held that such retraction on the part of Shri Dinesh Arora was an afterthought. 5. However, the appellate authority observed that during the result of investigation by the officers, it came on record that the appellant was selling their goods on two different basis, that is credit sales and cash sales. In respect of credit sales, he held that the result of investigation conducted, by the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellate authority confirmed demand of Rs. 2,85,000/- along with imposition of penalty of identical amount under Section 11AC in respect of cash sales where the buyers name, though were given by the appellant, but there was no complete address available so as to make it possible for the Revenue to conduct inquiries at their end. As such, he held that inasmuch as the goods with the brand name of other persons were found in the appellants premises and the statement of Shri Dinesh Arora was inculpatory, it has to be held that wherever the goods were sold against cash, they bore the brand name of other person. 7. After hearing the submissions made by both sides, we would first like to deal with the appellate authorities relying on the state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... name of 'needle fold'. The appellant is also admittedly manufacturing the goods with his own brand name 'needle grip'. Merely because the full address of the buyers in respect of cash sales were not given in the invoices, thus not making it possible for Revenue to conduct inquiries at their end, by itself cannot be held to be a strong evidence to hold that all those clearances were with the brand name of 'needle fold'. We also note that no question to that effect was posed before Shri Gaurav Arora, partner of M/s. Milap Steel Industries to find out the fact as to whether the present appellant has actually manufactured and cleared the goods under his brand name to the buyers. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that there is ....