9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, submitted that the appellants manufacture paints, varnishes, primers and thinners; that the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification has been disallowed to them on the ground that they were clearing thinners manufactured by them bearing the brand name and logo owned by M/s. Kamfin Industries. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that in respect of their other manufactured goods, the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification has been granted in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Fine Industries [2002 (146) E.L.T. 53 (T-LB)] whereas in respect of thinners, the benefit of exemption has been denied on the ground that the same is being manufactured by both the factories; that this finding is not correct i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, Shri Vikas Kumar, learned S.D.R., submitted that Shri Rajiv Bhalla, who is one of the Directors in the appellant-company, is the proprietor of M/s. Kemfin Industries, has deposed in his statement that the brand name and logo belonged to him and he was manufacturing the goods under this brand name; that, subsequently, the said brand name and logo was supplied to M/s. Kemfin Chemicals (P) Ltd.; that in the case of Kemfin Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2003 (162) E.L.T. 458 (T) = 2003 (88) ECC 701 (T), the Tribunal has held that the brand name Kemfin belongs to Kemfin Industries as the Sale Deed between the Kemfin Industries and Kemfin Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. clearly mentions that M/s. Kemfin Industries are the owner of brand name Kemfin ; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred. In reply the learned Consultant submitted that in terms of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (T) = 1999 (32) RLT 1 (CEGAT-LB), their assessable value has to be re-determined treating the price charged by them as cum-duty price; that the penalty imposed is on higher side. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notification No. 1/93 and its successor Notification provides that the benefit of Small Scale Exemption will not be available to excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person. It is not in dispute that the impugned goods manufactured by the appellants are cleared bearing the brand name and logo Kemfin belonging to M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 88/88, dated 13-12-88. Thus, the circular No. 88/88 also does not advance the case of the appellants. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification as they are clearing the impugned goods bearing the brand name of another person. However, we agree with the learned Consultant that in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd., 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2002 (80) ECC 249 (S.C.), the sale price has to be treated as cum-duty price. Accordingly, the demand of duty is to be re-computed by the Adjudicating Authority by taking the sale price as cum-duty price and allowing dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
