9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 'abrasive wheels' falling under Chapter No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under an agreement entered into with M/S SONNENFLEX SCHLEIFMITTELWERK, West Germany in 1975. The said agreement was valid for a period of five years. 3. The assessee was manufacturing the above product with inscription of the word "in technical collaboration with West German Company". Since 1977 the respondent-assessee has been availing benefits of various small scale notification including Notification No.178 of 1977 and the subsequent notifications issued in that behalf. Notification No. 175/86 was amended by Notification No. 223/87 dated 22nd August, 1987 with effect from 1st September, 1987 which reads thus :- "The exemption contained in this notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by order in original dated 16th April, 2001 the duty demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act of 1944 was imposed. Challenging the order in original dated 16th April,2001 the Assessee filed an appeal. Before the Tribunal the Assessee submitted that in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy vs. Grasim Industries Ltd reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T 123 (S.C.) it would not be open to the assessee to contend that at the material time the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the Notification available to the small scale industries unit. However, it was contended that the duty demand confirmed by invoking larger period of limitation was not justifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Senior Counsel for the assessee, in the present case the agreement between the assessee and the West German Company entered into in the year 1975 was in relation to acquiring technical know-how and not in relation to the user of the brand name. 9. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the technical know-how agreement entered into by and between the assessee and the West German Company has expired in the year 1980 and the same has not been renewed thereafter. Apart from the above, right from inception, the goods manufactured by the assessee have been cleared by the assessee with an endorsement "in collaboration with the West German Company." 10. According to the revenue, inscribing the words "in technical collaboration with West Germ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght of various decisions were under the belief that inscribing the words 'in collaboration with the West German Company' on the manufactured goods did not constitute user of brand name, then merely because, the Apex Court subsequently in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd (supra) ruled to the contrary, it could not be said that the assessee had suppressed material facts. 12. Accordingly we hold that in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not guilty of any fraud or collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts and, therefore, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the present case. 13. Once it is held that there was no fraud or collusion or any willful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
