9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their own brand name "GETEX". On the basis of an intelligence received, both the premises of appellants were searched on 21.09.2010. Department observed that since the packing, re-packing, affixing of MRP, etc. amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and as per entry No. 100 inserted vide Notification No. 12/2006-CE dated 29.05.2006 appellant is liable for excise duty. But the appellant had not obtained Central Excise registration nor a proper record of sale or purchase of goods was found maintained. The follow up actions were also initiated against the buyers of GETEX automobiles located in and outside Delhi. On the basis of various documents and records recovered during the search and observing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed to be appropriated. In addition penalty was imposed. An Appeal was preferred against the said Order which was rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri R.K. Mishra, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. 3. It is submitted for the appellant that the show cause notice is absolutely barred by time as there is no evidence about any intention of the appellant to evade the payment of central excise duty. Hence, the demand as has been confirmed is liable to be set aside on this score only. It is further submitted that the total clearance for the period 2010-11 through sale estimates and packing slips were provided at the time of reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded based on the evidences available which are the statements not only of the proprietor of the appellant but of the producers as well as the suppliers thereof. There is a clear confession by the proprietor of the appellant that he is involved in procuring plain auto parts without brands and branding the same in the brand name and style of Hero Honda, TVS, Yamaha and Suzuki, in addition to GETEX brand. Hence, there is no infirmity in the Order. Learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Shiv Shakti Steel Tube Vs. Commissioner reported at 2008 (221) E.L.T. 166 (P&H) wherein it was held that in case of clandestine removal the statements made under Section 14 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture for the other brands. There is apparent admission that the brand names of the Companies like Hero Honda, TVS, Yamaha, etc. were without any permission/ agreement and the same was known to the appellant to be an illegal activity. This admission of the proprietor of appellant stands duly corroborated from the statement of the appellant's accountant cum computer operator. Hence, the subsequent contention of the appellant about not manufacturing the goods of other brand is not acceptable. The seizure of such goods at the time of searches is, over and above, corroboration to the aforesaid admission. 5.2 The question as to whether the admissions can be confirmed on the strength of confessional statements stands settled by the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants were clearing the goods in the name of other brand as that of Hero Honda, TVS, etc. While doing this, not only the condition of SSI exemption Notification for not selling the goods of other brands stands violated but the total clearances exceeds the prescribed limit therein of Rs. 1.5Cr. As a result, we are of the opinion that Department has committed no error while confirming the demand. The admissibility of the statements admitting the noticed guilt also stands supported from another decision of Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2011 (270) E.L.T. 643 (S.C.) wherein it was held that if the statements of concerned person are out of their volition and there is no alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... normal period of limitation and also for ordering appropriation of this amount qua the demand confirmed. 8. Proceeding ahead towards another contention of the appellant about the show cause notice issued by Delhi Commissionerate-I for the appellant's unit in Dwarka to be without jurisdiction: 8.1 We observe from the record that searches at the appellant's premises at Karol Bagh as well as at Dwarka unit and also at the residence of the proprietor at Dwarka were carried out on the strength of search warrants issued by the competent authorities. The impugned show cause notice specifically recites that the search warrants for the premises of Dwarka were issued by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-II. In fact, the officers from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
