9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued on 16/23-1-1990 alleging that inasmuch as the container bore the trade name or brand name and logo of M/s. Killick Nixon who were not eligible for benefit of the aforesaid notification, by virtue of Paragraph 7 of the notification read with Explanation (viii) thereof, Pelican Paints Ltd. were not eligible to the beneift of the aforesaid notification. The show cause notice alleged that duty on goods cleared during the period 1-10-1987 to 28-2-1989 as also from 1-4-1989 to 31-7-1989 was short levied. Rule 9 and proviso to Section 11A was invoked and the allegation was also made that both M/s. Pelican and M/s. Killick Nixon were liable to penalty. After hearing both respondents, the impugned order was passed where under the Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply of the department dated 21-1-1988 requires the assessees to produce the labels both before and after entering into agreement with the sole selling agents. The letter also mentions that the branded tins were bearing the logo both of the manufacturer and of M/s. Killick Nixon. In their reply dated 25-1-1988 the appellants again claimed that the monogram of M/s. Killick Nixon was not a brand name but was only a symbol. Further clarifications were made by the assessee vide their letter dated 1-2-1988. Letter dated 26-12-1988 shows that representative tins were also sent to the Assistant Collector. Letter dated 2-5-1988 from the department shows that the classification No. 110/88 effective from 1-3-1988 was duly approved by the jurisdictiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment which clearly brings out the fallacy of the allegation made out in the show cause notice that the fact of the use of logo of Killick Nixon was not brought to the notice of the department. In fact the department had examined the logo on the tins both before the agreement of M/s. Killick Nixon and after the agreement. In such circumstances the allegation that the assessees had evaded the duty by way of suppression cannot stand and the demand concerned is clearly hit by limitation. 6. Since we have decided the issue on limitation, we do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the case. 7. Shri S.V. Mehta, ld. Counsel arguing for M/s. Killick Nixon Ltd. reiterating the claim made in the appeal memorandum stated that his clie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
