2017 (7) TMI 893

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended. Revenue entertained a view that the appellant manufactured the branded goods and accordingly, not eligible for the said concession. Upon verification of documents and premises of the appellant, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand and recover of Central Excise duty not paid by them. Proposal were also made to confiscate the seized goods from the factory and godown premises of the appellants along with the imposition of penalty. The appellants contested the demand. The case was adjudicated by the original authority, who confirmed the Central Excise liability of Rs. 7,57,334/- in two parts, namely, (i) Rs. 4,72,214/- on goods seized from Office-cus-Godown premises of the appellant and (ii) Rs. 2,85,120/- on the go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut equal penalty, can be invoked only when there is non-payment or short-payment of duty. In the present case, as there is clearances in respect of the goods lying in the factory, no penalty in terms of Section 11AC can be imposed. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue defended the findings of the lower authorities. He submitted that regarding the goods lying in the factory, the plea of the appellant is that they are engaged in job work with the client. Investigation conducted on the appellant's side indicated that no such documents are available in support of such claim. Regarding the brand name, it is his submission that there is no need for registration of such brand name. As long as, the letter or abbreviation mentioned in the excisable g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the client stating that they do not have such brand name and they do not proceed against the others using such brand name, is of no help to the appellant. As noted we are concerned with the scope of brand name as explained in Para 5 of the notification. 7. Regarding claim of the appellant that they are engaged job work, here, no evidence to support the same. 8. Regarding claim made for trading, in respect of the goods seized from the office-cum-godown, we have perused the documents on record. Most of the purchase bills produced by the appellant, where reference is to nuts. The present case is relating to bolts with names embossed on them. As such, we find that the purchase documents cannot be linked with the sized goods. 9. Regarding....