2017 (4) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Dr. Prabhat Kumar with Ms. A. Suresh, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER These three appeals by Revenue are against a common impugned order dated 26-2-2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-II. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. A.K. Electronics (the main respondent) are engaged in the manufacture of line processors, saw filter modulators, etc., liable to Centra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the respondents. We have also perused the written submission and appeal papers. The demand against the main respondent is on the ground that they were manufacturing goods with brand names of another person and were clearing the same without payment of duty. The allegation was sought to be sustained on the findings of recovery of certain branded goods in the premises of the main respondent duri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ring the visit by the officers as is evident from the panchnama. This has been taken note of by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is also categorically submitted by the respondents that they had never manufactured broad band amplifiers and hence the question of clearing branded amplifiers did not arise. They have submitted receipts for receiving these amplifiers. Documents pertaining to the clearance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X