Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 704 - CESTAT NEW DELHISSI exemption in case of use of brand name of others - Cross examination of the dealers - Held that:- The allegation of duty evasion against M/s Green Malleables and the linked question of imposition of penalty on M/s Green Marketers is based on the allegation that during period from 01/01/2000 to 23/05/2000 M/s Green Malleables were using the brand name NN belonging to M/s Green Engineering Corporation on pipe fittings manufactured and cleared by them. The main evidence in this regard is the statements of certain dealers. Beside this, the Department also relies upon the fact that during the period of dispute M/s Green Marketers has not purchased any pipe fittings from M/s Green Engineering Corporation and that in January 2000, M/s Green Engineering Corporation had shifted some of their operations casting and annealing to M/s Green Malleables and that the brand name NN is affixed at the casting stage only. In our view merely because during January 2000, the casting and annealing operations were shifted by M/s Green Engineering Corporation to M/s Green Malleables, it cannot be presumed that during that period M/s Green Malleables had also started using the brand name NN on the products manufactured in their factory. In our view the main evidence in support of the Department’s allegation is the statement of certain dealers that during the period of dispute they were purchasing the pipe fittings from M/s Green Malleables which were bearing the brand name NN. In our view, while relying upon the statements of these dealers in support of the allegation of duty evasion against M/s Green Malleables, in terms of the provisions of Section 9D (2) readwith Section 9D (1) the cross examination of those persons would be mandatory, for which, in this case, the request had also been made and which has not been allowed. In view of this, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of appellant.
|