2000 (10) TMI 72 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are whether the appellants suppressed the fact of clearing goods with the brand name of 'ESCORT' and 'BM' belonging to other entities, and whether the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act can be invoked.

Summary:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing parts of tractors and printing machines, appealed against an Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Central Excise. They were availing benefits under a specific notification but faced a show cause notice for clearing parts with brand names of other companies. The adjudicating authority held them not entitled to the exemption and demanded duty under Section 11A. The Tribunal upheld this decision but remanded the matter regarding the extended period under Section 11A. The subsequent order invoked the extended period under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules due to alleged suppression of facts by the appellants.

The appellants argued that they had not suppressed any facts and that the Revenue was aware of their activities. They contended that the goods were visibly marked with 'ESCORT' and 'BM', and the Revenue officers had seen these markings during visits. They emphasized that there was no intent to evade duty and cited legal precedents regarding fraud and suppression under Section 11A.

The Revenue's representative countered that the appellants did not disclose the use of other brand names in their classification list, which was approved without this information. They argued that the gate passes mentioning 'BM' did not provide sufficient knowledge to the Revenue about the branding of the goods. The representative urged for the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice was based on the alleged suppression of facts regarding the branding of goods. The appellants' argument that the Revenue was aware of their activities was deemed unconvincing. The Tribunal emphasized that the classification list did not mention the use of other brand names, and the gate passes with 'BM' and 'ESCORT' did not adequately inform the Revenue. Legal precedents cited by the appellants were found inapplicable to the present case. The appeal was rejected based on these findings.