Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (1) TMI 1008

I exemption N/N. 8/2002 is not available to them - request for cross-examination rejected - Held that: - 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 SCN. This reasoning for denial of cross-examination to be highly unjust and against the provisions of law. Section 9D provides for relevancy of statements under certain 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., .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

half of the department, ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the demand stating that the denial of request of cross-examination has vitiated the proceedings. That the department has recorded statements from various buyers who had stated that the brand names belong to them. The statement recorded by the Central Excise officers is valid in law unlike a statement 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

D of Central Excise Act, 1944 and submitted that the department cannot reject the request for cross-examination unless the conditions stated in the said section are fulfilled. Further, the adjudicating authority has observed that the buyers have confirmed that they are the rightful owners of the brand names which is factually incorrect. The buyers of the finished products had given deed of assignment in favour of 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 na .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||