TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz Reflux Valves and Gear Boxes failing under C.H. no. 84.81 and 84.83 of CETA, 1985. It was alleged that they had not only manufactured goods on their own but also manufactured said excisable goods bearing brand name "CUSA" on behalf of M/s. Cusa Engg. Pvt. Ltd.; that M/s. Cusa Engg. Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in trading activity and were getting goods manufactured from M/s. Bhide & Sons Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Arjunwadkar Consolidated Engg. Pvt. Ltd. with the brand name "Cusa" from Dec 87 to Jan 90 and no declaration under the notification no. 305/77 dt 5.11.77 was filed by Cusa; that Cusa were supplying the raw material (casting) for gear box and reflux valves to M/s. Bhide & Sons Pvt Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Aggrieved by such an order, the appellants preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after considering the submissions made original is correct. 4. Learned Counsel submits as under:- a. Only issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the Gear Boxes were affixed with the brand name "CUSA" by the Appellants in their factory. The Appellants have categorically denied that they have affixed any brand name on Gear Boxes in their factory as alleged in the notice. b. During investigation which commenced on the suspicion of use of others' brand name "CUSA" on the goods, Gear Box found in the Appellants' factory was detained. However, the detention memo does not indicate that the said Gear ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by relying on circumstantial evidence that since another manufacturer namely M/s. Arjun Wadkar Consolidate Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had affixed the nameplate "CUSA" in their factory, Appellants also might have followed the same practice. g. The Original authority sought to reject the statement and affidavit of Shri Sanjay Kachare on the flimsy ground that in his statement and affidavit he had referred to M/s Bhide & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Sangali only. h. From the above, it is evident that going by the admissible evidences on record, the Deptt. could not sustain the allegations as made in the notice i.e. brand name "CUSA" was affixed on the Gear Boxes in the Appe0ants' factory before its removal. i. Most significantly the exemption under Noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of the main appellant that Shri Kachare was employee of CUSA Engineering Private Limited and was collecting the gearboxes from their factory premises and undertaking the activity of affixing the nameplates at some other place and it has been admitted by him in the statements recorded by the authorities. We find that the first appellate authority while rejecting the appeal filed by the appellants recorded the following findings in paragraph number 7:- "7. I find that as regards the putting brand name "CUSA" the appellants have contended that in his statement dated 2nd April 2991 and in the affidavit Mr. Kachare stated that he arranged for the machining of the Reflux valves and gearboxes from different factories including the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed on statement of Shri A.D. Arjunwadkar, M.D. of M/s. Arjunwadkar Consolidated Engg. Pvt. Ltd. one of the co-noticees I find that if similar goods have been manufactured from two different sources and the same are being directly cleared to the customer the adjudicating authority is justified in applying the facts and drawing the same inference. Therefore, their contention on this point is neither convincing nor acceptable." It can be seen from the above reproduced findings that the first appellate authority has clearly recorded that the gearboxes were dispatched from the appellant's premises without nameplate. These findings are not contested by the revenue. Reading holistically the findings and the statement of Shri Kachare, whe....