Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 891 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacture and removal - SSI Exemption - entire case is based on the statements recorded during the investigations - cross-examination denied - penalty under Section 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- In the absence of circumstances as specified in Section 9D(1)(a) of the Excise Act, the truth of the fact contained in any statement, recorded before a gazetted Central Excise Officer has to be taken as evidences as per Section 9 D(1)(b). The evidentiary value of the statement, is therefore, completely lost in this case as the parameter of Section 9D has not been complied with - The burden of proof lies on the Revenue and required to discharge effectively, however, the same has not been done in this case. As far as the use of the common brand name is concerned, it is on record that the same has been assigned by the assignment deed is dated 1/04/2012 on other applicants. No error is committed by the appellant in using the common brand name ‘AKS’ by the other appellants as well. In any case, the AKS is brand fixed were ‘AKS Gold’ and ‘AKS Silver’ appears to be a different brand name than ‘AKS’ - In this case the statement of Shri Bharat Bhushan which was relied upon by the Department have not been examined by the Adjudicating Authority before accepting their statement and also the cross examination of these persons were permitted even after categorical submissions made by the appellants before the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|