9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ol of Maruti Udyog Limited. He has also held that there is suppression in the matter and hence larger period is to be invoked in the matter for demands arising for the period 1-10-1987 to 30-5-1990. The ground taken by the appellants was that they were manufacturing Wire harness classifiable under Heading 8544.00 of the Tariff. There is no dispute with regard to the classification of the product. The only question is as to whether the affixing of the name Maruthi on the label annexed to the final product namely Wire harness supplied to Maruthi would disentitle the appellants from the benefit of SSI exemption under 175/86. In terms of Para 7 of the said Notification, the exemption contained in the Notification shall not apply if the specifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstance the Brand name was not affixed on the specified goods and it was only embossed at the Forging stage before such forgings were received at the appellants' unit. Despite this fact, the Tribunal after examining a large number of judgments held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Notification for the reasons stated therein. He submits that the Trimurti Weldmesh (Pvt.) Ltd. case was in a worse situation in which case there was the embossment of the name 'Fitwell' before the forging stage on the goods while in the present case there is no embossment or putting the identification or Trade mark on the specified goods. He submits that it was only on the tag which accompanied the goods and it was only for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is clear that the specified goods manufactured by the appellants was not embossed with any trade mark/symbol of Maruthi Udyog Limited. It was only on the tag (Mark was printed). In terms of Para 7 of the Notification, the Brand name or Trade name is required to be affixed on the specified goods. In this case admittedly no such affixation of Brand name or Trade name was done on the specified goods. In a similar situation, as in the case of Trimurti Weldmesh (Pvt.) Limited (supra), the Tribunal granted the benefit after examining the entire case law. In that case, the situation was still worse inasmuch as the assessee received the goods with the Trade name embossed at the forging stage. Yet the Tribunal on analysis of the Proviso Para 7 gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 307 (S.C.) = 1997 (68) ECR 32, Hon'ble Supreme Court on analysis of the historical background of the third proviso to Section 36(2) of the Act held that in such cases the demands have been limited only to 6 months and beyond that would be considered as time-barred. In the case of Sonarome Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 326 (T) = 1998 (26) RLT 96, the Tribunal held in similar facts that larger period is not invocable in second show cause notice when on the same set of facts a show cause notice for another period was issued. They had taken into consideration including that of Kamal Plywood and Allied Industries v. CCE as reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 323 wherein a similar view had been ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
