9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 175/86 and had produced a Provisional certificate of registeration as an SSI Unit in the name of the brand name owner. The fact in brief as set out in the ld. lower authority s order and which are not in dispute are set out below : On 13-1-1992 the Central Excise Officers of Madras VII Division, Preventive Unit, Visited the said factory for verification of the records. During the course of verification, they found that the factory besides manufacturing confectionery with their own brand name `Harts , also manufactured and supplied to M/s. Mikie Orient Confectioneries, Madras-8, confectioneries with their brand name `Mikie . They also manufactured supplied confectionery to M/s. National Products, Bangalore, with their brand name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holder and Shri D. Jaya Kumar, Assistant Manager (Finance) of M/s. Mikie Orient Confectioneries, in their statement dated 7-2-1992 and 14-1-1992 respectively have confirmed the fact that they do not own any factory for the manufacture of the said product and their company was started at No. 150, Montieth Road, Madras-8, and subsequently functioning at 74, Pantheon Road, both the premise were used as Office premises only." 2. The duty has been demanded in respect of the clearance of goods with the brand name `Mikie and longer period of limitation has been invoked in terms of Rule 11(A) proviso for reason of a suppression of fact. The ld. Advocate has urged the following pleas : (1) The demand is time barred extended period of limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 so long he holds an SSI Certificate. 5. It has also been urged that the brand name has been affixed on the wrapper and not on the contents and therefore product manufactured could not be considered as a branded product. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative adopted the reasoning of the ld. lower authority in this regard. 7. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. Following question fall for consideration (1) Whether the goods in question are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. (2) Whether longer period of limitation is applicable or not. We observe that the appellants are manufacturing confectionery for M/s. Mikie Orient Confectionery who are [sic] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he eligibility has to be determined with reference to the parameters of manufacturing in a factory. M/s. Mikie Orient Confectionery are in our view therefore not eligible to the benefit of notification. 9. Next question to be considered is whether the longer period of limitation is applicable. We observe that the Director of the appellants Company has stated that they had the knowledge that M/s. Mikie Orient Confectionery had no factory despite of this knowledge they have not come forward to inform the department in this regard. The appellants had business relations with the said firm and had knowledge of the registered address of the Company from which they were operating. The same address was also shown in the SSI Certificate, which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
