TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which heavy reliance is placed in the Show Cause Notice, had stated that they were placing orders on Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg which was executed sometimes on the invoice of M/s. Rajesh Plastics Pvt. Ltd and sometime on invoices of M/s. J. N. Footwear Pvt Ltd. Revenue have adduced no evidence to Show that the said brands had acquired such reputation so as to be identified with the persons who applied for registration - benefit of SSI Exemption was available to the appellant company - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeals Nos.50668, 50253 & 50254/2018 - Final Order Nos.50068-50070/2019 - Dated:- 22-1-2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri B.B. Sharma, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on payment of Fine amounting to ₹ 1,15460/-. A penalty amounting to ₹ 10,14,065/- on Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg and ₹ 35,088/- upon Sh. Rajeev Kumar Garg was also imposed. The Appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) were rejected by the impugned order. 4. Both the aforesaid Show Cause Notices were adjudicated by the Common Adjudication Order dated 30.11.2016, wherein the following orders were passed. a. In respect of Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2011 i. Footwear Soles having MRP value ₹ 7,16,400/- confiscated with an option to pay Redemption Fine of ₹ 1,07,460/- ii. Seized PVC Granules valued at ₹ 80,000/- with an option to pay Redemption Fine of ₹ 8,000/-. iii. Penalty amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2012 Sale of branded PVC Soles as per Private records. 4. Rs.35,088/- Duty demand on Seized PVC Soles. 5. Rs.3,56,192/- 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 Duty Demand on PVC Grade II Dana 6. Rs.9,78,977/- Total 7. Out of the total duty demand, ₹ 6,22,785/- have been confirmed on PVC soles for footwear by denying the SSI Exemption on the ground that the soles were bearing AIM and JUMP brand owned by someone else. It is stated that, as per the website of Trade Mark registry, AIM brand have been applied by Sh. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as factually incorrect. He stressed that such an identical factual error by more than one person clearly shows that the statements were tutored one. Ld. Counsel also pointed out that Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg, in his statement dated 30.11.2015 had specifically stated that the Soles sold after 29.04.2011 had no brand on them. Sh. Anil Kumar Bhatia in his earlier statement dated 23.08.2011 had stated that they were purchasing PVC soles bearing brands other than AIM and JUMP . He further contended the said brands were used by the family of the directors of the appellant. Co. and that Sh. Rajesh Garg, who had applied for registration of AIM brand is real brother of the two directors of the Appellant co. and one of the directors of M/s. Rajesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, whether registered or not, is used. 11. Having considered the rival contention and on perusal of the facts on record, we find that the department have adduced no credible evidence to show that the soles cleared by the appellant co. were bearing AIM and JUMP brand only. As regarding claim that the said brands were owned by the family, we find that three buyers of the appellant company, Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhatia, Sh. Sandeep Kamra and Sh. Anil Kumar Bhatia in their statements, on which heavy reliance is placed in the Show Cause Notice, had stated that they were placing orders on Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg which was executed sometimes on the invoice of M/s. Rajesh Plastics Pvt. Ltd and sometime on invoices of M/s. J. N. Footwear Pvt Ltd. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
