TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey had been availing the SSI exemption under Notification No. l/93-CE, dated 28-2-93 as amended. But they were found using the brand name ELEX on those machines which belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works and as such according to the C. Ex. Authorities they were not entitled to avail the benefit of said notification. They were, accordingly, served a show cause notice raising the duty demand of ₹ 12,21,834/- for the period 1-10-94 to 16-9-98 and proposing imposition of penalty and payment of interest. After getting their reply, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed equal amount of penalty payable with interest and also imposed separate penalty on Shri Pritam Singh, Proprietor of the Appellant s firm a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before relying upon the same, in view of the ratio of law laid down in Manindra Chandra Dey v.CEGAT, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 192 wherein it has been so observed regarding confessional statement, by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court. 5. We do not find any oral or documentary evidence on the record lending corroboration to the retracted confessional statement of Shri Pritam Singh, Proprietor of the appellant s firm. There is no material on record to suggest if any enquiry was conducted from the buyers to whom the machines were sold by the appellants, in order to ascertain that those machines carried brand name ELEX . Rather the Appellants had brought on record the certificates issued by their various buyers of the machines, namely, Mohan Knitters, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , according to the Department belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works. But Shri Pritam 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 in his individual capacity. He cannot be legally said to be running another firm of M/s. Elex Knitting Machinery, as single person cannot constitute any firm under the law. Therefore, being already co-owner of the brand name, he was competent to use the same. 7. In light of the discussion made above, the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 could not be legally denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
