9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their factory during the period April, 1989 to July, 1990 and imposing penalty of Rs. 16 lakhs on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the said period, M/s. Eastern Abrasives Ltd. were a subsidiary of M/s. CUL. It appears that, after the impugned order was passed, the subsidiary company was merged with the holding company. Hence the appeal of M/s. CUL. 2. The impugned order is in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 11-3-1994, which denied SSI benefit under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-1986 to M/s. EAL for the aforesaid period on two grounds viz. (a) the total turnover of the two companies, taken together, exceeded the specified limit (Rs. 200 lakhs), under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., of aggregate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed their status vis-a-vis M/s. CUL before the department. Learned Commissioner accordingly rejected the proposal to deny exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE to M/s. EAL on the ground of their being a subsidiary of M/s. CUL. However, on the brandname-related issue, the adjudicating authority held against the assessee. It was held that use of the words a subsidiary of Carborandum Universal Ltd. on the goods in question amounted to use of the brandname of M/s. CUL and accordingly the benefit of the Notification was denied to the party in terms of para 7 thereof, which made the notification inapplicable to goods cleared under the brandname of another person. With regard to the use of the so-called brandname, learned Commissioner fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contested the demand of duty on the ground of limitation by submitting that the appellants cannot be said to have suppressed the use of another person s brandname with intent to evade payment of duty. During the relevant period, the use of the name of the holding company on the goods manufactured and cleared by the subsidiary was not thought to be tantamount to use of the holding company s brandname. Therefore, counsel submitted, M/s. EAL were indicating the name of their holding company on their products without the knowledge or belief that they were using the brandname of another person on the goods. In the circumstances, the extended period of limitation was not to be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts, for demanding duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench considered a similar factual situation and held that, as it was not obligatory for a SSI unit to disclose the factum of use of brandname in Rule 173B declaration, the assessee (SSI unit) could not be held to have suppressed the fact that they had been using the brandname of another person. It was also held, in the said case, that, where there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal on the substantive issue, the extended period of limitation was not invocable for demanding duty. In the present case, it is not in dispute that, during the relevant period, the view taken by the apex court in Grasim Industries (supra) was unknown to the trade. Hence there is substance in the claim of the appellants that they did not know that they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
