9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mes are not owned by them. The factory premises is not situated in a rural area. The department was of the view that the respondents were wrongly availing the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2002. Statements were recorded from the various buyers. Show cause notice proposing to demand duty along with interest besides proposing imposition of penalty was issued. After adjudication, the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 16,59,858/- and imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 17.12.2003 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of predeposit. Against this order, the respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 15.2.2006 remanded the matter with direction to pay predeposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. Janardhanan Pillai appeared on behalf of the respondent and filed written submissions. He submitted that the statements recorded by the department which is the basis for the show cause notice are hollow statements without any supporting documents. Though the buyers contend that they are the owners of the brand names, no evidence has been placed on record to support the statement of the buyers. Nothing prevented the department from making investigation with the Trademark Registry regarding registration of the trademark in the name of the buyers as claimed by them. The respondent fully knowing that the statements are false had requested for cross-examination of these witnesses. The department did not allow cross-examination stating that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to them. On perusal of records, we find that the main basis for the allegation is that the statements recorded from various buyers. It is the contention of the department that these buyers have stated that the respective brand names belong to them. The respondent has requested opportunity to cross-examine these buyers. It is the case of the respondent that the buyers have assigned the product name in their favour. The request for cross-examination was disallowed by the adjudicating authority stating that the statements given by these persons have already been incorporated in the show cause notice. We find this reasoning for denial of cross-examination to be highly unjust and against the provisions of law. Section 9D provides for relevancy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
