2018 (9) TMI 492

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the premises of M/s B.M. Enterprises which is a proprietary concern of Smt. Seema Garg wife of Shri Devender Kumar who is engaged in manufacture of electric wire and cable and enjoying benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. During the course of search, certain branded goods were found in the factory premises of M/s B.M. Enterprises. The branded goods were of several brands but mainly three brands were disputed by the department which are Nuloux, Ganak, Savstar. It is the allegation of the department that these brand names had owned by third party, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to avail the benefit of SSI exemption notification. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the co-appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainable in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. - 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC), therefore, the show cause notice dated 14.6.2016 is not sustainable. Accordingly, demands are not sustainable. 4. On merits, he submits that for the brand name viz. Nuloux, they are having the assignment deed in their favour, therefore, the said brand name cannot be said to belongs to third party, therefore, on that account demand is not sustainable. With regard to brand name Savstar, it is his contention that the said brand name is not registered in the name any other person and department has not come with an evidence that this brand name is owned by a particular person, therefor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the goods in brand name of others. The said manufacturing unit is named as M/s B.M. Enterprises, but no show cause notice was issued. Later on, after issuance of the second show cause notice, the show cause notice dated 19.7.2013 has been dropped against the appellants. It has been alleged in the show cause notice dated 19.7.2013 that the appellants are manufacturing branded goods of others and subsequent notice has been issued on the basis of same investigation on 14.6.2016 is not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When t....