Per P.S. Bajaj : This appeal has been filed by the Appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on the Appellants as detailed therein.

2. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flat knitting machines. They had been availing the SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.93 as amended. But they were found using the brand name "ELEX" on those machines which belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works and as such according to the C.Ex. authorities they were not entitled to avail the benefit of said notification. They were, accordingly, served a show cause notice raising the duty demand of Rs. 12,21,834/- for the period 1.10.94 to 16.9.98 and proposing imposition of penalty and payment of interest. After getting their reply, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed equal amount of penalty payable with interest and also imposed separate penalty on Shri Pritam Singh, Proprietor of the Appellant's firm as detailed in the Order-in-Original. The said order has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. We have heard both the sides.

4. The benefit of the SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.93 had been denied to the appellants solely on the ground that they had manufactured and cleared the goods (flats knitting machines) under the brand name "ELEX" which belonged to M/s. ELEX Engineering Works. But on the record, excepting the bald testimony of Shri Pritam Singh, Proprietor of the appellant's firm, which too was retracted by him under later on, there is no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate this ground. We find from the record that he (proprietor) in his statement recorded on 16.9.98, did not deny the use of the brand name "ELEX" on the fully automatic knitting machine. He also allegedly did not dispute that the said brand name belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works. But this statement was retracted by him and subsequently his statement was recovered by the Officers wherein he denied the use of said brand on the machines. He explained the circumstances and state of confusion under which he made earlier statement. Therefore, his earlier statement which stood retracted could not be taken as substantial piece of evidence for bringing home the allegations of having used the brand name of another person as set out in the show cause notice. Rather, his statement was to be taken only as light weight piece of evidence needing independent corroboration before relying upon the same, in view of the ratio of law down in Manindra Chandra Dey Vs. CEGAT, 1992 (58) ELT 192 wherein it has been so observed regarding confessional statement, by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.

5. We do not find any oral or documentary evidence on the record lending corroboration to the retracted confessional statement of Shri Pritam Singh, Proprietor of the appellant's firm. There is no material on record to suggest if any enquiry was conducted from the buyers to whom the machines were sold by the appellants, in order to ascertain that those machines carried brand name "ELEX". Rather the Appellants had brought on record the certificates issued by their various buyers of the machines, namely, Mohan Knitters, PEE JAY Apparels (P) Ltd., Elite Hosiery Textile, Oosha Traders, Kalptaru Fashions, Ajanta knitwears, Wonder knitwears Ltd., Elson Hosiery Mills, T.S. Mechanical Works, Kanodia Hosiery Mills (P) Ltd., Manglam Niryat, Mod Style Hosiery Mills, Nagesh Knitwears Ltd., Trimurti Knitting Works and Chand Krishan Hosiery Works, wherein they all had given the details of the invoice number vide whey they purchased the machines from the appellants and categorically stated that no brand name "ELEX" was embossed those machines. Rather, one M/s. Manglam Niryat, had stated in the certificate that the Hosiery flat knitting machines purchased by them fro