TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , confirming also classification of Call Duration Indicator (Public Call Office Monitor) under brand name Telephone Traffic Analyser-TTA 01" under sub-heading 6517.20. The show cause notice had denied benefit of exemption under SSI Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 because the said brand name belonged to M/s. Analog Digital System, Bangalore, who are not SSI under said Notification and also alleged undervaluation by not including training charges. There was also an allegation of clandestine removal of 243 units without duty etc. the impugned order, gave following reliefs :- (a) allowed benefit Notification No. 175/86-C.E., TTA-01 was not found to be a brand name; and (b) allowed plea of no clandestine clearance for 20 unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning classes was adopted by Learned Commissioner. He also cited (i) 1988 (33) E.L.T. 787 (Tribunal) (ii) 1993 (63) E.L.T. 156 (Tribunal) (iii) 1996 (84) E.L.T. 456 (Tribunal) 4. Ld. JDR counters by submitting that impugned order is detailed and a fully speaking one. Digitation is a deliberately created entity to facilitate under valuation. Training was merely to familiarise how to operate it and cannot constitute 60% of the charges. He reiterated findings in Order-in-Original. 5. We first consider this aspect. We have carefully considered arguments on both sides and case records. We find that the charge of under-valuation does not survive because of the following reasons :- (i) neither the impugned order nor the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y high after setting off such expenses. The impugned order summarily brushes aside the affidavits of trainees in this regard. 6. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt goes to the appellants and out of the total amount of duty demand confirmed, an amount of Rs. 10,09,418/- (as calculated by ld. Advocate) needs to be set aside. However, this Tribunal has not verified the calculation of this amount and orders that the original authority shall get this done when dispensing consequential relief. 7. Learned Advocate for appellants has submitted against charge of clandestine removal on following grounds :- (i) It is now limited to 223 units only involving duty of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strong and reliable evidence and needs strong corroboration. Others cited are in the same vein. We have considered these. The impugned order does not solely rely on these. There is a plethora of evidence led and discussed from para-19 onwards therein. It is not necessary to repeat them as they are on record. We find that there are statements of Managing Partner Shri Patel, statements of a number of dealers, clear documentary evidence to show gross irregularities in serial numbers, inculatory statements by many buyers/recipients showing that often no GP 1s were received by them. Even invoices were not received in many cases. Appellants have not led a single conclusive evidence to effectively controvert these. On the contrary, Partner, Shri P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
