TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tore. 2. It is the case of the Revenue, as we could gather from the Show Cause Notice, that there were certain manufacturers of Wet Grinders of the brand name 'Sowbaghya' and clearing the same to M/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises Private Limited, Chennai/Erode (M/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises, for short) and that the Appellant Firm viz. M/s. K.R. Engineering Works, Coimbatore is one of such manufacturers. It is the further case of the Revenue that most of such manufacturers including the Appellant were manufacturing 'Sowbaghya' brand Stainless Steel Wet Grinders of ordinary type model / Stainless Steel long body Wet Grinders and removing the same without payment of Central Excise duty to M/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises. Based on the above, it appears tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pears that the same was challenged in Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who, vide Order-in-Appeal No.29/2018 dt. 08.02.2018 allowed the Appeal by way of remand, with a direction to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the Appellant's reply dt. 09.10.2015 and pass an order after hearing the Appellant as the First Appellate Authority was convinced that the impugned order therein was passed by violating the principles of natural justice/not considering its reply. 4. In the second round of adjudication proceedings, the Original Authority passed Order-in-Original No.02/2018 dated 02.04.2018, wherein the proposals made in the SCN and the demands raised in the original adjudication proceedings vide Order-in-Original dt. 23.01.2017 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. This has been taken as a firm stand to not only deny the alleged clandestine removal of goods in question, but also to deny any role of said Murugesan who is none other than the husband of Proprietrix/Appellant herein. It was thus claimed that the Appellant was in no way responsible or liable based only on the statement of Murugesan. 7. The admission of the Appellant as to what she was doing under the name M/s. K.R. Enterprises is conspicuously absent. When the SCN specifically alleged, based on investigation, that the Appellant was manufacturing Wet Grinders, the same has not been categorically denied by the Appellant and it cannot, therefore, be like the Appellant was doing nothing under the name M/s. K.R. Enterprises. If the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing some specific replies wherever it is required, like despite mentioning that the manufacturers were supplying goods manufactured by them under sale invoices but however, no such invoices bearing the brand name 'Sowbaghya' was procured by the investigating officer, that M/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises was not the owner of the brand name 'Sowbaghya', in respect of goods supplied by M/s. Asian Appliances, Coimbatore, the Investigating officer appears to have found printouts of name plates/ stickers wherein it was clearly mentioned as 'Manufactured for M/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. by M/s. Asian Appliances, Coimbatore' which was not the case of the Appellant that no such stickers / name plates were found with Appellant's name. 9. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing order and hence, we are of the view that the impugned order is clearly a non-speaking order and certainly not an order passed adhering to the principles of natural justice. 11. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration as the demand based on alleged clandestine removal has been fastened on the Appellant, the Appellant has also nowhere indicated the nature of her business which is being carried out under the name and style of M/s. K.R. Enterprises, has also not explained why no cross-examination of Murugesan was sought, nor has the Appellant offered any documentary evidence indicating the nature of business to prove her bonafides / innocence. In view of the above, we set aside t....