Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. G.K.K. Exports Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Chennai-Iv on 22 December, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI E/643/2007 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 71/2007 (M-IV) dated 28.06.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai). M/s. G.K.K. Exports Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant Vs. CCE, Chennai-IV : Respondent
Appearance Shri V. Ubtaya Bharathi, Adv., For the applicant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. PANDA, Judicial Member Honble Shri MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, Technical Member Date of Hearing/Decision: 22.12.2016 FINAL ORDER No. 42519 / 2016 Per: D.N. Panda Appellant says that during search operations on 2.2.05 in the premises of the appellant, the investigating team found that M/s. El Torro also existed in the same premises. That concern was a trader of leather products while the appellant was a manufacturer thereof.
2. Departments allegation is that M/s. El Torro having sold its leather goods under the brand name of El Torro Genuine Leather and appellant was the manufacturer of such EL Torro brand products, SSI benefit was not permissible to the appellant.
3. Revenue relied on para-4 of the SCN to submit that the Director of the appellant stated that M/s. El Torro was a partnership concern of his wife along with two other members of the family and M/s. El Torro was engaged in trading of leather goods. That concern started its factory only in the month of August 2004. Due to seizure of the branded goods from the premises of the appellant, ld. authority below has passed a proper order denying SSI benefit.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5.1 There is nothing on record suggesting that appellant was manufacturing branded goods using the brand name El Torro for the period from April 2002 to January 2005. When the investigation failed to gather any evidence to establish that the clearances made during the period 2001-2004 and 2004 2005 were made using the brand name of another, there is no scope to agree with Revenue and uphold the adjudication order. 5.2 It is also strange to notice that investigation has miserably failed to make its story successful since on 2.2.2005 El Torro had its own independent establishment in the premises of the appellant existing from August, 2004. There is no case made out by Revenue to appreciate that in the financial year 2004-05, the appellant cleared El Torro branded goods. Consequently the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) (D.N. PANDA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BB
1