9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the goods after affixing of foreign brand name ATR and had technical collaboration with M/s. TR St. Moritz Ag. Switzerland. The statement of Jasbir Singh, Manager of the appellants was also recorded wherein he admitted that they were sticking paper labels on the goods bearing foreign name ATR. This very fact was also admitted by Shri S.S. Pahwa, in his statement recorded on 14-9-98 who even further stated that they were affixing such labels on their products since 1983 as they had technical collaboration with ATR St. Moritz AG Switzerland and that no other person could use this logo during the validity of their agreement with the said company which was effective up to February, 1989. On completion of the investigation, show cause notice dated 14-12-98 was issued to the appellants alleging that they were not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption Notification No. 1/93 (as amended) and Notification No. 16/97 as they were clearing the goods under the brand name of another person. The appellants, however, contested the correctness of that notice. They denied the use of brand name of any other party on their products and maintained the demand was time barred and they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and (v) all the RT-12 returns filed alongwith GPIs and invoices containing description of the goods during the disputed period were approved by the department. But in our view, from these facts it is difficult to legally hold that there was no suppression of true facts by the appellants regarding using of brand name of another person while availing the benefit of SSI exemption Notification Nos. 1/93 and 16/97. In none of the classification lists filed by the appellants during the period in dispute, for the verification of which the officers of the central excise are alleged to had visited their factory premises in terms of check list (page 83), the appellants disclosed that they were using the brand name of another person. They themselves had obviously suppressed the fact of using brand name of another person from the department. They were required to state in clear terms that they were not using the brand name of another person on their products and as such, they were entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. The fact of using the brand name of another person, in the present appeal, cannot be denied by them as the Tribunal had already giving findings against them while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any help to the appellants in view of the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 429 wherein it has been observed that acquiring knowledge by the department did not take away the extended period of limitation provided by the law maker in the Act when there was suppression, fraud and collusion exercised by the assessee on the department with intent to evade payment of duty. 6. The other grounds pressed into service by the Counsel for non-applicability of the extended period of limitation in the case of the appellants, are these (i) there was no positive mis-declaration of any fact on the part of the appellants, (ii) even there is no provision under the Central Excise law casting duty on the appellants to disclose that he was using the brand name of another person; (ii) they remained under the impression/belief that benefit of SSI exemption notifications was available to them if they were using trade mark of a foreign manufacturer, which was more prominent than of another person, on their product; (iv) SSI exemption benefit can not be denied as the appellants are exclusive owners of the brand name of foreign company and ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and name which was being used by them on their products, otherwise they could not avail benefit of SSI exemption notification. Therefore, the extended period had been rightly invoked against the appellants in the present case. 8. It had never been the case of the appellants that they were labouring under the mistaken belief in view of the conflicting legal position that benefit of SSI exemption notification could be availed even by using the brand name of another person, prior to the pronouncement of the larger bench s verdict in Namtech Systems Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238. No such plea was ever taken by them before the adjudicating authority. Moreover, their plea is that they had not used the brand name of another person and as such, the question of their labouring under the mistaken belief for availing benefit of SSI exemption notification, did not arise. 9. The question as to whether the appellants had used the brand name of another person and are entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption notification, cannot be gone into by us in the present appeal. The Tribunal had already decided this question against the appellants. The appellants had challenged that or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
