TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, submitted that both the appellants manufacture motor vehicle parts and avail of S.S.I exemption; that the Central Excise Officer visited the factory premises of Appellant No. 1 on 11-11-1997 and seized 350 pieces of motor vehicle parts said to bear brand name KAY PEE ; that subsequently, a show cause notice dated 5-5-1998 was issued for confiscation of 350 pieces of motor vehicle parts seized from their premises, 192 pieces of motor vehicle parts seized from the business premises of M/s. Khosla Automotive Pvt. Ltd., for demanding Central Excise duty on motor vehicle parts bearing the brand name and for imposition of penalty; that similarly, a show cause notice dated 5-5-1998 was issued to the Appellant No. 2 for confiscating 54 piece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty and penalty against the Appellant No. 2. 3. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that at the time of visit of the Central Excise Officer on 11-11-1997, they had recorded the statement of one Shri Rajesh Garg supposed to be son of Shri Harish Garg, proprietor of the appellant No. 1; that Shri Harish Garg has no son by the name of Shri Rajesh Garg; that the Appellant No. 1 has challenged the genuineness of statement of Shri Rajesh Garg and pleaded that such statement is a fabricated one; that they had requested for cross-examination of Panchnama witness and Shri Rajesh Garg; that, however, no opportunity was provided to them for cross-examination of these persons and as such the Adjudication order was passed in violation of principles o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother person. 5. Countering the argument Shri O.P. Arora, learned Senior Departmental Representative, reiterated the finding as contained in the Order-in-Original as well as Order-in-Appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has set aside the confiscation of the goods seized from the premises of the Appellant No. 1. Once the confiscation of the seized goods said to be bearing the brand name of another person has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) against which the apparently no Appeal has been filed by the Department, no evidence remains with the Revenue to prove that the Appellants were manufacturing excisable goods and clearing the same bearing the brand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
