2003 (2) TMI 68 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the Excise authorities in invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; if so, whether the order confirming penalty is sustainable? Held that - The ground that the assessee has suppressed the fact that M/s. P B Laboratories was also using the logo for availing the benefit under the notification cannot be a valid reason to invoke the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The proviso to Section 11A is not available to the Revenue. Consequently, we hold that the CEGAT erred in confirming the order of the Collector. As about the penalty imposed on the assessee it is not in dispute that if the proviso to Section 11A of the Act cannot be called in aid, imposition of penalty cannot be justified under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. See Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Ltd., 1995 (1) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Nagpur Alloy Castings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 2002 (4) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . The order imposing penalty is thus unsustainable. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of proviso to Section 11A:
The case involved a dispute regarding the invocation of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a registered small-scale unit manufacturing medicines, faced allegations related to duty demand based on the distributor being a related person. The authorities had issued multiple show cause notices over the years, dropping proceedings at various stages. The Collector eventually confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was partially upheld by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). However, the Supreme Court held that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant regarding the related person status of the distributor. The Court emphasized that the authorities had been informed of all relevant details at different intervals, and as such, invoking the proviso to Section 11A for an extended duty period was deemed unjustified.

2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.:
The dispute also revolved around the appellant's entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. post the insertion of para 7. The notification specified that exemption would not apply if the manufacturer affixed goods with a brand/trade name of another ineligible person. The Collector initially rejected the appellant's claim of logo assignment, leading to denial of exemption. However, the CEGAT accepted additional evidence of logo assignment but denied exemption due to alleged dual usage by the assignor. The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning, clarifying that the use of the logo by the assignor did not affect the appellant's eligibility for exemption. The Court further ruled that the appellant was not obligated to investigate or disclose third-party logo usage to authorities, and hence, the denial of exemption was deemed incorrect.

3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q:
Lastly, the Court addressed the issue of penalty imposition under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Given the findings that the proviso to Section 11A was inapplicable, the Court ruled that the penalty could not be justified. Citing relevant precedents, the Court declared the penalty imposition as unsustainable and set aside the CEGAT's order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.