2006 (12) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n Mullick, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. Valte, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides and perused the record. Duty demand is in respect of Syrups, Wafers etc. manufactured by the appellant under the brand name/logo of "HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA". When the Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's unit on 27-5-99, they saw certain stocks with t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. 3.  We find merit in the appellant's contention in regard to confiscation and penalty. The judgment of the High Court makes it clear that the ownership of the brand name is in dispute. The duty demand also is in regard to stocks found at the time of visit. Thus, the demand is within the normal period specified under Section 11A. Confiscation and penalty are not justified when the duty dem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X