2003 (9) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. 2. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flat knitting machines. They had been availing the SSI exemption under Notification No. l/93-CE, dated 28-2-93 as amended. But they were found using the brand name "ELEX" on those machines which belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works and as such according to the C. Ex. Authorities they were not entitled to avail the benefit of said notification. They were, accordingly, served a show cause notice raising the duty demand of Rs. 12,21,834/- for the period 1-10-94 to 16-9-98 and proposing imposition of penalty and payment of interest. After getting their reply, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed equal amount of penalty payable with interest and also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment was to be taken only as light weight piece of evidence needing independent corroboration before relying upon the same, in view of the ratio of law laid down in Manindra Chandra Dey v.CEGAT, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 192 wherein it has been so observed regarding confessional statement, by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. 5. We do not find any oral or documentary evidence on the record lending corroboration to the retracted confessional statement of Shri Pritam Singh, Proprietor of the appellant's firm. There is no material on record to suggest if any enquiry was conducted from the buyers to whom the machines were sold by the appellants, in order to ascertain that those machines carried brand name "ELEX". Rather the Appellants had brought....