TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not deal with/consider the submissions of the appellant based on letters dated 16 September 2002 and 26 March 2004 received from foreign collaborator stating that the brand name “Seal Jet” is not their band name. This evidence of the appellant was also not considered in the impugned order dated 9 April 2014 of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is required as a final fact finding authority to determine on the basis of evidence before it whether the brand name “Seal jet” used by appellant does belong to a foreign company as alleged by the revenue. There is no finding on the above issue. The impugned order has proceeded on the basis that “Seal jet” is a brand name belonging to a foreign company and dealt with a legal issue that the registration of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut considering the evidence in support of the appellant's case inspite of the same being pointed out to the Tribunal. 4) The appellant is carrying on business of manufacturing of Hydraulic seals Pneumatic seals and O rings of rubbers and plastics falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 5) During the period July 1997 to November 2004 the appellant was registered as an SSI unit. The appellant was also availing the benefit of SSI excise notification in respect of Seals manufactured and cleared under the brand name SEAL JET . 6) As far as back in 1996 the Central Excise Department has raised a query of the appellant whether it was using the brand name of foreign collaborator. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revenue before us supports the impugned order. 9) We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the impugned order dated 9 April 2014 of the Tribunal has not considered the appellant's contention that show cause notices covering the period July 1997 to August 2002 are barred by limitation or that there was no justification in the present facts to impose any penalty upon the appellant. The impugned order dated 9 April 2014 is vitiated to the extent it does not consider and deal with the above submissions of the appellant. On merits also the impugned order dated 9 April 2013 of the Tribunal does not deal with/consider the submissions of the appellant based on letters dated 16 September 2002 and 26 March 2004 received from fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
