2015 (8) TMI 1177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Excise Appeal No.2196/2006-EX(SM). It urges that the CESTATs confirmation of the findings of the lower authorities is contrary to the facts on the record and therefore based on a perverse appreciation of the materials.    2. The brief facts are that the assessee was man .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2006 was allowed. The material part of the discussion by the Appellate Commissioner is at paras 12 to 18 of his order. The Appellate Commissioner held that the revenue had failed to establish any nexus between the ownership of the brand and the manufacturing unit and had consequently fallen into error in confirming the show cause notice and the demanding duty as well as penalty. The Appellate Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he ownership of the said goods. In the absence of any evidence showing that the goods in question were manufactured by the respondent and were cleared by them without payment of duty, I find no reasons to disturb the findings of Commissioner (Appeals).   5. This Court is of the opinion that the above findings of the Commissioner(Appeal)s show that he has elaborately discussed the evidence. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X