9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of metal scrap was seized on 29-4-2000 and a quantity of bus ducts seized on 17-6-2000. Three trucks were also seized on 17-6-2000 as they were found laden with bus ducts found to have been cleared without payment of appropriate central excise duty due on them. Adjudicating a Show Cause Notice issued in this connection, the original authority found that the respondents had been clearing bus ducts bearing the brandname ‘STARDRIVE’ belonging to sister concern of the respondents M/s. Star Drive Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (SDEL). Held that- set aside the impugned order to the extent it relates to bus ducts and restore the order of the original authority. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und liable for confiscation. She confirmed demand of Rs.18,07,417/- from M/s. SDBL towards duty due on bus ducts cleared by it during the material period along with applicable interest. She imposed a penalty of Rs.11,36,572/- on the respondents under Section 11AC of the Act. The seized bus ducts of value of Rs.7,05,000/- were confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER) and offered redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.25,000/-. The seized lorries were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs.15,000/- each. She imposed a penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on Shri K.L. Thadani, MD of the respondent-company under Rule 209A of the CER. The scrap seized were confiscated and ordered to be redeemed on payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DRIVE'. The respondents had deliberately misdeclared that they used their own brand name in order to avail the inadmissible benefit in terms of the SSI Notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a decision of the Tribunal which was distinguishable on facts from the instant case to vacate the demand, confiscation and penalties on the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly relied on the clarification issued by the CBEC Circular No. MF(DR) F.No. 213/41/88-CX-6 dated 30-12-88 wherein it had clarified that use of a brandname did not disentitle an assessee for the SSI benefit if the same had been registered for use on a totally different product. In the instant case the brand name 'STARDRIVE' used by the appellants on its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er concern SDEL and the respondents had knowingly availed inadmissible SSI exemption and cleared bus ducts without payment of duty due thereon. The order of the original authority deserved to be sustained. 4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the rival submissions. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the impugned order as regards the demand of duty, order of confiscation and penalty in relation to the offence of clearance of bus ducts without payment of excise duty. During the material period the Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 1-3-93 extended exemption to first clearances of specified goods of specified value subject to, inter alia, the condition that the goods did not bear a brandname belonging to another pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the brand name 'STARDRIVE' in respect of other products and not bus ducts. As the brandname 'STARDRIVE' was registered in the name of SDEL way back in 1975 and had been used by them for marketing various products including bus ducts, we have no doubt that the use of the same brandname by the respondents disentitled the impugned clearances to the SSI exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) also relied on a clarification issued by the Board on the scope of Notification No. 223/87 dated 22-9-87 which had contained a similar restriction as in the SSI Notifications in question as regards use of another's brandname. The CBEC had clarified that use of brand name used by another person to market a product of a different class did not disentitle an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
