TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d another against the Order, dated 30-4-2002 through which the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the Order of the Deputy Commissioner regarding confiscation of flat knitting machines and imposition of redemption fine and penalty on them as detailed therein. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flat knitting machines. Being a SSI unit, they had been availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 as amended and subsequent SSI Notifications including No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98. But they were found using the brand name ELEX on those machines which belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works and as such they were not entitled to avail the benefit of SSI notifications. The goods lying in the factory were seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dispute that the said brand name belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works. But this statement was retracted by him and subsequently his statement was again recorded by the Officers wherein he denied the use of said brand name on the machines. He explained the circumstances and state of confusion under which he made earlier statement. Therefore, his earlier statement which stood retracted could not be taken as substantial piece of evidence for bringing home the allegations of having used the brand name of another person as set out in the show cause notice. Rather his statement was to be taken only as light weight piece of evidence needing independent corroboration before relying upon the same, in view of the ratio of law laid down in Manind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant s firm could not be given much credence. The authorities below have wrongly accepted the said statement of Shri Jatinder Singh as substantial evidence. 6. Apart from this, even otherwise legally it cannot be concluded that the appellants were using the brand name of another person. The brand name ELEX , according to the Department belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works. But Shri Jatinder Singh who is the proprietor of the appellant s firm, is one of the partners in that firm. Being co-owner of the brand name in the above said firm, he could not be said to had used the brand name of another person, in the manufacture and clearance of the goods by him in his individual capacity. He cannot be legally said to be running anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
