9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en confirmed on 55 Nos. of SAFEX brand, Automobile Safety Glass by extending larger period. 2. The learned Counsel submits that the reason for denying the benefit of SSI Notification is that the brand SAFEX was being used by M/s. Hindustan Safey Glasses Limited, Calcutta. He submits that they had also filed an application for registration of the said brand name. They held a bona fide belief that in the light of several judgments of the Tribunal affirmed by the Apex Court that the benefit of Notification cannot be denied merely because that the brand name used and affixed by them happen to be the brand name of another person. However, he points out that the latest judgment of the apex court in the case of CCE v. Grasim Industries - 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicate that the SAFEX brand can be registered by the appellant in their own name for their products. The search report itself clearly shows that the brand SAFEX has been pending for registration in respect of two more applicants for different products and the trade and Merchandise act clearly provides for registration of the same brand name for different class of goods. In view of this it cannot be alleged that the appellant had intention to evade duty. In these circumstances larger time limit cannot be invoked. 1. Champhor Drugs Linaments - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (SC) 2. Cosmic Dye Chem - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (SC) 3. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals - 1995 (78) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 327 (d) Shakti Iron Steel Co. Ltd. - 1999 (30) RLT 641 (e) Vallabh Cement - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 106 (f) Ellora Mechanical - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 109 (g) Movika Pharmaceuticals - 1998 (27) RLT 230 (h) New Vikram Cement - 1998 (27) RLT 474 (i) Jana Jeevan Foods (P) Ltd. - 1999 (30) RLT 686 (j) Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. - 1998 (27) RLT 419 (k) Gurunanak Steel Allied Industries - 2001 (42) RLT 37(T) (l) Aldowin Others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 22-9-1987 not available. 4 2006 (199) E.L.T. 855 - M/s. TISCO Ltd. Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts - Bonafide doubt about excisability due to divergent judicial views - Extended period not invocable, especially in absence of positive act on part of assessee - Date of knowledge of department found to be irrelevant - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. 2006 (199) E.L.T. 159 - Prakash Udyog Samiti Demand - Limitation - Intent to evade payment of duty - As appellants adopted the view adopted by Larger Bench of Tribunal they could not have intention to evade payment of duty - Extended period of limitation not invocable - Section 11A of CEA, 1944. 6. 2006 (201) E.L.T. 27 - Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Impression of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atio decisions - (a) Supreme Industries Limited - 2004 (64) RLT 135 (b) Multiplex Lami Prints - 2004 (64) RLT 532 (c) CCE v. Suromed Pvt. Ltd. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 318. (d) Formica India - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (SC) (e) Chamundi Re-rolling Mills - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 563. 3. The appellant is entitled to Modvat credit not-withstanding the fact that they did not follow the procedure at the relevant period of time. Though this ground was not raised in the appeal memorandum a misc. application has been filed along with documents and requisite fee of Rs. 500.00 seeking for admitting this ground as additional ground and the eligibility to Modvat credit being question of law can be raised at this stage also. Penalty and interest 1. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously on partnership firm and individual partners. Shyam Traders - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 95 Darshan C Sanghvi v. CCE - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 676 Alfa Ceramics -2002 (145) E.L.T. 454 Swem Industries -2003 (154) E.L.T. 417 Compusoft - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 241 Kamdeep Marketing -2004 (165) E.L.T. 206 Sarpin Pharmacal - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 472 Ramashyama Papers - 2004 (63) RLT 130 Vinaykumar Baid - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 33 J.B. Industries - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 316 6. We therefore pray that the Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned order with consequential benefit as per law. He submits that the demands have to be restricted for six months in the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
