9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re manufacturing excisable goods claiming the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The goods cleared by them without payment of duty included Evaporating and Condensing units classifiable under sub-heading 8415 and 8419 which products were excluded from the benefit of the said notification. These goods when cleared during the period 1991-92 in fact were liable to payment of duty. Thus duty was quantified at Rs. 3,12,998.40. 3. Such coils were made by M/s. Gopi Electronics during the year 1992-93. These goods were supplied by them to M/s. H.M.T.D. Engineering who in turn sold to the Railways. At the material time Notification No. 75/87 was in existence. This Notification gave conditional exemption to these goods when manufactured by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d notification. Having confirmed such dues against M/s. HMTD Engineering and M/s. Gopi Electronics the ld. Collector imposed penalties of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. HMTD Engineering and of Rs. 40,000/- on M/s. Gopi Electronics and of Rs. 20,000/- on Shri S. Balakrishnan, Managing Director of M/s. HMTD Engineering. Hence these appeals. 4. Appeal Nos. E/4606 & 2629/95 SB(WR) were argued by Shri Sahasrabudhe. He clarified that he was confining his argument only to the imposition of penalty. He stated that the assessees did not have any malafide intention and that this happened only on account of wrong interpretation of the subject notification. As regards the Managing Director, he submits that proceedings do not bring out any culpability on hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act the brand name of M/s. HMTD Engineering. In terms of the Notification No. 75/87, the goods bearing a brand name of another person would not be eligible for the benefit thereof, if other person was not capable of benefiting therefrom (Emphasis supplied). The proceedings show that M/s. HMTD Engineering were also manufacturing similar goods. They were also falling under SSI. Therefore, on the correct interpretation of Clause 5 of the Notification No. 75/87, it could not be stated that M/s. HMTD Engineering were not eligible. 8. But this is not the only defect in the Revenue appeal. Whereas, the demand in the show cause notice was made from M/s. Gopi Electronics, the appeal from the Revenue has made M/s. HMTD Engineering as the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
