TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, be negligent in despatching the same other than by recorded delivery/by speed post or registered post. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No. E/1219/2010-EX[SM] - A/70338/2018 - Dated:- 13-2-2018 - MR. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri S. S. Kumar (Authorized Representative), for Appellant Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey (Supdt.) AR, for Respondent Per: Anil Choudhary The undisputed facts on record are that the Appellant is manufacturer of Leather Footwear falling under Chapter 64 of the CETA, 1985. On 02/11/2007 the manufacturing premises of the appellant was visited by the officers on intelligence that they were engaged in ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VANCHO brand, which was not the brand of the appellant. He further stated that the brand name LEVANCHO belonged to M/s C. D. International, Prop. C. P. Poptani F/O of appellant, whereas, the appellant s own brand was HITZ . He also stated that he prepared the slips in duplicate out of which the original was sent to the buyer and the duplicate was retained by them. The officers also recorded the statement of Shri C. P. Poptani, the proprietor of M/s C. D. International, who affirmed in his statement that the brand LEVANCHO was owned by their unit. The entire proceedings of the search and recovery of slips and recording of statements were also recorded in the panchnama prepared on the spot in presence of the officers, the proprietor and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f imposition of penalty is made out. The so-called slips based on which allegation of clandestine removal is made, there is neither the name of the buyer nor any signature of the recipient of goods. Without name of the buyer and signature in token of receipt of goods, no one will make payment. Attention was drawn to the copies of the slips annexed in the appeal paper book as Annexure seven. Further the court below ignored the fact that when the payment of the transaction based on the slips had been received, then there was no reason to keep safe the evidence of clandestine removal. Further the court below ignored that both the brands in question are owned by the same family and as such there is no case of usage of brand name of another. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ically stated that they are the owners of the brand LEVANCHO and Mr. Deepak Poptani has got no concern or interest in the same. Further Mr. Deepak Poptani have admitted the sale of goods in cash and receipt of sale proceeds in cash. Thus the facts are supported by documentary evidence and as such the so called retraction is of no help to the appellant. Further these retractions are by way of afterthought as no person of ordinary prudence while retracting his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, be negligent in despatching the same other than by recorded delivery/by speed post or registered post. Further in the retraction statement the appellant have not been able to explain why the 08 slips indicating manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
