9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal -l) New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the factory premises of M/s. J. N. Footwear Pvt. Ltd. was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 29.04.2011. The unit was found engaged in manufacture of PVC granules from old and used PVC footwear. The granules were further used in manufacture of PVC soles. The available raw material and finished goods totally valued at Rs. 7,96,400/- were placed under seizure. A Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation of seized goods was issued on 24.10.2011proposing confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties. A further Show Cause Notice dated 08.01.2016 was issued proposing demand and recovery of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 17,61,745/- along with interest and imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv. Separate penalty of Rs. 9,78.977/- each was also imposed under Rule 26 upon the two directors Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg and Sh. Rajeev Kumar Garg. 5. M/s. J. N. Footwear Pvt. Ltd. and its two directors filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) which were disposed off by the impugned order dated 06.10.2017, wherein all the appeals were rejected and Order in Original was upheld. 6. Duty demand of Rs. 9,78,977/- have been confirmed on various counts. The said components of demand are tabulated below.:- Sr. No. Amount of Duty Period Description 1. Rs.1,53,927/- 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011 Sale of branded PVC soles as reflected in Invoice Books. 2. Rs.3,62,697/- 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 Sale of branded PVC Soles as reflecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt company namely Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhatia, Sh. Sandeep Arora and Sh. Anil Kumar Bhatia. The said statements were recorded on 4th and 5th of January 2016 i.e. just three four days prior to issuance of Show Cause Notice which was issued on 8thJanuary, 2016. The said statements were read out before us to demonstrate that they are identically worded. The Ld. Counsel specifically pointed out that in all the statement it is stated that they purchased branded PVC soles till2013 from the Appellant co., which was admittedly by Ld. Adjudicating authority in para 48 of the Order in Original 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 als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f PVC granules are PVC Resin, CPW and chemicals. He had nowhere stated that these materials are also required for manufacturing Granules from old and used PVC shoes. At the time of search, the PVC Granules were being manufactured from old and used PVC shoes and no stock of PVC Resin etc. was found. The department have also not produced any evidence to show that the appellant firm had ever purchased PVC Resin etc. 10. On the other hand Ld. A. R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. He stressed that the SSI Exemption is lost is brand name belonging to someone else, 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 credib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
