2002 (3) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of demands by invoking larger period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act based on alleged non-disclosure of brand name "JOSALIN" in Declaration Form.
- Discrepancy in treatment of two units using the same brand name "ASOKA" for different products.
- Applicability of judgments regarding non-disclosure of brand names and intent to evade duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confirmation of demands based on non-disclosure of brand name "JOSALIN"
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Original confirming demands against the appellants for using the brand name "JOSALIN" on their manufactured goods without declaring it in the Declaration Form. The Commissioner invoked a larger period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellants argued that there was no requirement to disclose the brand name in the declaration and relied on Tribunal judgments to support their case. The Tribunal held that unless there was intent to evade duty or suppress facts, larger period could not be invoked. The Tribunal referred to various judgments affirming this principle and allowed the appeal, setting aside the confirmation of demands and penalty.

Issue 2: Treatment of units using the same brand name "ASOKA" for different products
The Tribunal discussed a case where two units were using the same brand name "ASOKA" for different products under the jurisdiction of the same range Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal held that authorities should have been aware of the common brand name usage and that there was no suppression of facts. The Tribunal found the order confirming short levy and imposing penalties unsustainable, emphasizing the need for diligence by authorities in such cases. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief.

Issue 3: Applicability of judgments on non-disclosure of brand names and intent to evade duty
The Tribunal extensively discussed various judgments regarding non-disclosure of brand names without intent to evade duty. It cited cases where larger period was not invoked due to lack of suppression of facts. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving intent to evade duty before confirming demands for a larger period. The appeal was allowed based on the principle that larger period cannot be invoked without evidence of intent to evade duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confirmation of demands and penalty, emphasizing the need to prove intent to evade duty before invoking a larger period of limitation. The judgments cited supported the appellants' argument that non-disclosure of brand names without intent to evade duty does not warrant confirmation of demands for a larger period.