Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (7) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ad wrongly availed the benefit of total exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 185/87-C.E., dated 17-7-1987 which provides for exemption inter alia to absorbent Cotton Wool falling under CET sub-heading 30.04 subject to the condition that such goods are manufactured by a manufacturer by whom or on whose behalf, no such goods are sold under a brand name - the case of the department is that the appellants sold the product in dispute under the brand name BRISK , and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11-1-1990, the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of absorbent Cotton Wool I.P. falling under Chapter 30 of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notification No. 185/87 and proposing recovery of duty (as confirmed) and imposition of penalty. The extended period of limitation was invoked for alleged suppression of use of brand name, with intent to evade payment of duty. The adjudicating authority upheld the charges in the show cause notice and confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty. Hence this appeal. 5. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Counsel who contends that during the period of demand, goods do not bear any brand name i.e. the labels affixed on the goods did not bear any brand name but only bore the name of the manufacturer while the brand name appeared only on the documents such as invoices, delivery challans etc. and the use of the brand name on the documents do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. 185/87 dated 17-7-1987 Exemption to absorbent/non-absorbent cotton Wool and Gauze. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts absorbent cotton wool, non-absorbent cotton wool, and gauze cloth and gauze cloth bandages (hereinafter referred to as such goods), falling under Heading 30.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule : Provided that such goods are manufactured by a manufacturer by whom or on whose behalf no such goods are sold under a brand name. Explanation. - For the purpose of this notification, `brand name shall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roduct was shown only in the documents such as delivery challans, invoices, etc. and that even after the appellants had stopped using the brand name on the labels of the goods, they had continued to use the old stationery. The partner also produced the copy of the label of the disputed product and affixed on the goods during the relevant period, as an enclosure to the reply dated 25-11-1992 to the show cause notice. We have seen this label at page 98 of the paper book and find that it contains only the name of the manufacturer and not any brand name. The department has not rebutted the contention of the appellants that the label above mentioned was not the label produced along with the reply or that such label was different in any way from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lied upon Circular No. 4/88, dated 25-3-1988 issued by the C.B.E.C. clarifying that exemption under Notification 185/87 may not be denied to Absorbent Cotton Wool I.P., gauze bandages etc. merely because the name of the manufacturer or his Drug Licence No. is written on the label since the indication of the manufacturer s name and Drug Licence No. These are statutory requirements for all drugs including the aforesaid products. 12. In the light of the above, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 185/87. 13. We also hold that demand is barred by limitation - the Superintendent of Central Excise Shri R.C. Parekh has confirmed in cross examination that the labels of the products we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates