9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of the notification. A penalty of Rs. 20 lacs has also been imposed. The period in dispute is May 1989 to November 1989. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicants Ms. Ginni Bedi contends that the brand name Love Lites was a family name and the right to use the said brand name had been assigned to the sole proprietor of the applicant herein and therefore the applicants are manufacturing and clearing goods with their own brand name and hence had rightly availed of the benefit of SSI Notification No. 175/86. Her next submission is that the demand is barred by limitation since it was within the knowledge of the department that the applicants were using the brand name Love lites on their goods and a show cause notice was issued on 28- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es preferred an appeal to the Tribunal which remanded the case to the Collector (Appeals), directing him to decide the issue on merits, and this case is still pending. He submits that the earlier proceedings donot act as a bar to the issue of notice invoking the extended period of limitation and adjudication thereof particularly when it is the case of the department that the applicants had deliberately suppressed the fact of manu-facture of goods with someone else s brand name and also in view of the fact that they had suppressed production of lamps and light fittings during the period in dispute. He states that the order dated 27-5-1992 of the Additional Collector is not directly relevant to the issue in this case since there is no finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessees claim that they were under bona fide based upon the deed of assignment by M/s. Kapoor Lamp Shade Co., Connaught Place in favour of Mrs. Shakuntala Kapoor, that they were entitled to the use of the brand name, has not been controverted. In fact, this plea of the applicants was raised before the adjudicating authority who has not recorded any finding thereof. Their belief also finds support from the Additional Collector s order dated 27-5-1992. In these circumstances it cannot be prima facie held that the applicants suppressed the use of the brand name Love lites with deliberate intention to evade payment of duty. Viewed from this angle, the demand for the period in dispute i.e. 1988-89 to 1990-91 raised in the show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
