TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.5.2018, the appellants have filed these appeals. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has sustained the Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2016 wherein a demand against the appellant have been confirmed as under: (a) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,83,544/- under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, Excise Act); (b) Excise duty along with cess amounting to Rs. 9,521/- under Section 11A of the Act; (c) Demand of interest at the applicable rate under Section 11(AA) (erstwhile Section 11B of Excise Act); (d) Imposed penalty of Rs. 7,93,066 under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short Excise Rules); (e) Penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant engaged in manufacture of PVC soles and many brands like TRUE, JUMP, TOIAL, EXPORT, FLAXOLOGY APPLE & SINGAPORE etc. and, therefore, the SSI benefit under the aforesaid notification was not applicable to the appellant. It was also found by the Department that the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 is not available to the appellant as they are mixing the other ingredients in recycling waste and scrap of plastic. Under the above facts and circumstances, the case was adjudicated by the primary adjudicating authority confirming the demands, against the appellant (which was sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order. 3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....landestinely removed goods also. As no evidence, whatsoever, has been brought on record that the appellant sold the goods bore the same brand name is charge is not sustainable. Further, it was also submitted that the Department failed to adduce any evidence in the show cause notice that the said brands have acquired such reputation to be identified with person in whose name such brands are registered. The reliance was placed on the decision of Final Order No. 50068-50070 of 2019 dated 22.1.2019 of M/s J.N. Footwears Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. CCE, New Delhi. 3.2 The learned Advocate also contended that the valuation has been arrived at Rs. 18 per sole or Rs. 36 per pair which is without any basis in view of the fact that this value was con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., one is regarding the availability of Notification No. 4/2006 regarding the manufacture of PVC granules from old and used plastic materials and the SSI benefit to the manufactured PVC soles by the appellant. It is apparent from the two Show Cause Notices and the Order-in-Original that the case has emanated from the searches made on 29.4.2011 on the various firms/companies including that of the appellant, which appeared to be the family concerns. A common Show Cause Notice has been issued to all of the units and their Director/proprietor, which has also been adjudicated by a common order-in-original, which is under challenge in this appeal. The appeal filed by M/s J.N. Footwears Pvt. Ltd. which was also in one of the party in the proceeding....