9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Label Stock falling under CSH 4811.20. There was another unit M/s. Stay-on Paper Private Ltd. (SPPL for short) manufacturing similar products. The DGAE made out a case that the respondent affixed the brand name of SPPL Stay-on on their product. Hence, they were not entitled for the benefit of SSI exemption. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 24-10-2000. The adjudicating authority, in his order dated 23rd October 2001, confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. Appeals were filed and CEGAT remanded the case to the original authority for de novo adjudication after taking into account the Board s Circular cited by the respondents. Consequently, the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order. The adjudicating authority has come to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the G.M. (Operations) of SPPL is Supervisor (Production) in M/s. SI and the statement of the responsible officials of the Company of M/s. SI go to show that the printing of Stay on logo belonging to SPPL was done by M/s. SI in their factory (M/s. SI) and the charges made in the SCN to deny the small scale exemption in respect of the clearances made with the above brand name are justified and the Commissioner should have demanded duty accordingly. The Commissioner s observation that references made in the SCN about the use of engraved cylinders were irrelevant, is also not proper. (iv) In view of the statements given by them, the observations of the Tribunal/Supreme Court in the Vimal Printery case and relied upon by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso seen the samples produced at the time of hearing. We have seen that each Release Paper carried the brand name of the supplier. The investigation is silent on the brand name in the Release Papers purchased from other suppliers. Moreover, there is no clinching evidence to show that the respondent printed the logo Stay on on the Release Paper. The adjudicating authority has also taken into account the fact that a brand name on a raw material would not mean that the finished product is also carrying the same brand name. He has rightly relied on the CEGAT s. Order in M/s. Vimal Printery Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara. We find that the Commissioner has passed a very balanced order taking into account the facts. He did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
