9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein during the period March to July, 1997 and whether the extended period of limitation is applicable against them. 2. The benefit of SSI exemption has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the chocolates bore the brand name ASSORTED TAJ CHOCOLATES owned by the Indian Group of Hotels Co. Ltd. and not owned by the assessees, while the extended period has been invoked on the ground that in the classification declaration No. 1/97-98 dated 1-4-1997 under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, they claimed the benefit of exemption and declared that that they do not manufacture the product under the brand name of any other person or company, thereby leading to suppression of vital facts from the Revenue authorities. 3. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls Group has not confirmed that the above mentioned name belonged to them, is not tenable in the light of the statements of Shri Jorkar and Shri Bardhan which we hold are sufficient to establish the case of the Revenue regarding use of someone else s brand name so as to disentitle the appellants to the benefit of the SSI notification. 5. The contention that since the chocolates in question were not sold by The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., there is no connection in the course of trade between the goods and the person owning the brand name so as to debar the appellants from the benefit of exemption under SSI notification is not tenable in view of the statement of Shri Jorkar that Taj Mahal Hotel sells chocolates bearing their brand name ASSORTE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question. 7. The proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act is available to the department as the appellants had misdeclared that they were not manufacturing the product in the brand name of any other person and thus suppressed the fact of use of brand name of another person on their goods. The intention to evade payment of duty can be gleaned from this deliberate misdeclaration. The submission that the declaration of non-user of someone else's brand name is only in respect of bakery items other than chocolates is devoid of merit as the relevant declaration in which the appellants have stated that they are manufacturing products in their brand name and not in the brand name of any other person or company is only for two produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
