TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n circumstances. In cases where the evidence is merely statements, denial of cross-examination causes much prejudice to the assessee and will vitiate the proceedings. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/471/2009 - Final Order Nos.40090/2018 - Dated:- 9-1-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The brief facts are that the respondent is an unregistered unit engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. Intelligence was gathered that they are manufacturing products of various brand names namely Alide Suspension, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given before a police officer. None of the buyers have retracted their statements and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have upheld the demand. The respondents contended that the buyers have transferred / assigned the brand names to them. No reliable evidence was produced in this regard. The assignment deed which was produced is of no relevance since the deed of assignment is entered in 1999 to 2002 whereas the stamp papers are of a subsequent date. That this document cannot be accepted as valid document for proof that there is assignment of the brand names in favour of the respondents. That since the respondent have used the brand name of another, they are not eligible for SSI exemption and the demand confirmed by the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondent. These documents clearly state that the assessee has been doing business of manufacturing and sales of pharmaceutical formulations since 1997 and the assessee is the rightful, and sole and absolute owner of all the products and the entire artistic work. The agreements do not show any mention of assignment of brand names and what is mentioned is only product name. The allegation of the department that the respondent has used brand name of another is without any factual or legal basis. Therefore, the commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the demand. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The allegation against the respondent is that they have manufactured pharmaceutical products using the brand name of other persons and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
