9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itive, differential gear treatment additive, PTFE-based grease and engine coolant, all branded NULON . The clearance of the products without payment of duty was made under a claim that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as lubricating oils and greases, for which exemption from duty was available under Notification No. 120/84-C.E., dated 11-5-84. After investigations conducted through Preventive Officers of Central Excise, the department classified the products under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and found that the goods were not covered under Notification No. 120/84-C.E. and further that the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 and 1/93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the redemption fine, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the company. The adjudicating authority also confirmed demand of duty on the subject goods to such extent as would be worked out by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the party preferred appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal, by Final Order No. 301/97-C, dated 30-5-97 [reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 668] upheld the classification of the products proposed by the department, approved the invocation of the extended period of limitation for demand of duty on engine coolant but disapproved it in respect of duty on the other products, set aside the appropriation of cash security, reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- and remanded the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the brand name NULON , which was registered w.e.f. 26-3-87 in the name of Shri L.K. Bajoria trading as Hitech International as per the Certificate of Registration dated 13-7-90 (vide page 52 of appeal file) should be treated as belonging to the appellant-company for purposes of the SSI exemption Notifications 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. Ld. Counsel emphasised that the registration certificate issued by the competent authority under Section 23(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was effective from 26-3-87 covering the entire period of dispute involved in the present case. The goods in question were cleared under the appellants own registered brand name and hence eligible for the exemption under the above Notifications during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant-company in the absence of evidence to show that the appellant-company was successor-in-interest of M/s. Hitech International Pvt. Ltd. Ld. SDR submitted that there was no evidence to substantiate the appellants claim that the brand name belonged to the appellant-company during the material period. Their claim of exemption from duty under Notifications 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. was hit by the bar provided, respectively, in para-7 and para-4 thereof. Therefore, according to ld. DR, the appellants were liable to pay the duty demanded on the goods in question. He also endeavoured to defend the Commissioner s order of appropriation of cash security towards redemption fine, by submitting that the Commissioner was within his right to do so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and use the brand name on PTFE based products in India. The registration of NULON brand name in L.K. Bajoria s name, therefore, cannot be treated as something done in terms of the MoU. It has, therefore, to be held that, insofar as the appellant-company was concerned, the brand name NULON belonged to the Australian company during the material period. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Tribunal s Larger Bench in Namtech Systems Ltd. v. CCE [2000 (115) E.L.T. 238], the benefit of Notification Nos. 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. were not available to the appellants products cleared under NULON brand name during September, 1989 to June, 1994. In the case of ESBI Transmission Pvt. Ltd. (supra) considered by the Calcutta High Court, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the seized goods. In the remanded proceedings, we find, the value of the goods has been settled at Rs. 5,58,048/- in acceptance of the assessee s claim. There is no longer any dispute over the value of the goods seized and, ipso facto, the appropriation of cash security cannot be said to be unsustainable. The redemption fine of Rs. 1,94,700/- has been imposed in lieu of confiscation, under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Unlike in Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, there is nothing in Section 34 of the Central Excise Act providing that quantum of redemption fine should have a nexus to the value of the goods. The appellants or their Counsel have not been able to substantiate their plea that, when the value of the seized goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
