9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Central (in short 'CESTAT') . The factual background needs to be noted in brief. 2. Factual scenario is noted in respect of Civil Appeal No.5305 of 2005. But the conclusions on the legal issues will cover the other appeals. 3. Appellant manufactures PSC girders at site to be used in the construction of Railway Bridge for Konkan Railways. The period involved is June 1994 to February, 1995. These articles were cleared without payment of central excise duty under Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). A show cause notice was issued on 8.5.1996 and the appellant was asked to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs.53,91,498/- should not be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the articles were held to be subject to excise duty. 8. In support of the appeals, Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that two appeals were decided by CESTAT on the question of manufacture. One related to the present appellants and the other to M/s Asian Techs. Ltd. Correctness of the judgment in M/s Asian Techs. Ltd. was considered by this Court in Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II (2007 (211) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.). This Court held that since there was bona fide doubt as to whether the activities carried on amounted to manufacture or not, same was a debatable issue and the questions were answered differently by different Benches and, therefore, the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the fact remains that there was material evidence by way of seizure of goods manufactured by M/s P B Laboratories bearing the same logo much after the alleged transfer of trade mark to the appellants' discloses that the Tribunal accepted that there has been an assignment but proceeded to deal with the case of inapplicability of the exemption under the notification on the ground that the logo was being used by M/s P B Laboratories also. We have already indicated above that use of logo of the manufacturer by third parties is alien for purposes of denial of exemption on the strength of Para 7 of the notification. In this view of the matter, we are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal denying the exemption to the assessee. 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05, Civil Appeal Nos.7412 of 2005 and 7621 of 2005 are allowed. Civil Appeal 1330/2008 14. The show cause notice was issued on 30.5.1996. In view of what has been decided in C.A. No.5305/2005, the appeal deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. Civil Appeal No.2383/2006 15. The dispute relates to the period from April 1993 to July, 1993. A show cause notice was issued on 8.5.1996. In view of what has been stated in C.A.No.5305 of 2005 decided today, the appeal deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. Civil Appeal No 2385 of 2006 16. The period involved is November, 1993 to December, 1994 and the show cause notice was issued on 3.12.1996. In view of what has been stated in C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
