9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tractor-trailors supplied by the appellant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary and, considering the negligible scope for any further operation on branded tractor-trailors , it would appear that the second unit is merely a trading unit which disentitles them to eligibility for any exemption whatsoever. Use of brand name - Held that: - The claim of the appellant to ownership of the brand Ishan arising from the finding that clearances should be clubbed does not appear to rest on sound foundation. That clearances are to be clubbed is the finding consequent upon the lack of evidence that M/s Hem Agro Industries is devoid of wherewithal to manufacture; hence, the manufactured product of the appellant is entirely attributed to appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e us; on the former occasion, the matter was remanded back to first appellate authority who, having rejected appeals against the order-in-original on grounds of non-compliance with pre-deposit orders, was directed to hear the matter afresh and dispose off the appeals on merit. The appellant, aggrieved by the impugned order, has raised a number of grounds. 3. The proceedings against the appellant were grounded on the ineligibility to exemption under notification no. 1/93-CE dated 28th February 1993 available to small scale units owing to invoking of the exclusion in the notification for goods manufactured with the brand name of another. The allegation against the appellant is that, even as job-worker, they are manufacturers and the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear finding that the two units have been artificially segregated to take advantage of the exemption available to small scale units, no effort has been put in by either of the two, on earlier occasions, and, in these proceedings, by the purported job-worker to establish that M/s Hem Agro Industries has a manufacturing facility where some production activity is undertaken on the tractor-trailors supplied by the appellant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary and, considering the negligible scope for any further operation on branded tractor-trailors , it would appear that the second unit is merely a trading unit which disentitles them to eligibility for any exemption whatsoever. 7. Turning to the issue of branded products manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire manufacturer is effected by the appellant. 9. Appellant cites the availability of the job-work notifications to put forth the argument that there was no ground for invoking the extended period. Availability of such an exemption does not alienate the intent to evade duty. That such intent did motivate all action of the appellant would be apparent from the lack of awareness of the exemption notifications. It is also moot whether the benefit of the job-worker notification could have been availed by an entity that lacks the capacity to manufacture tractor-trailor. There is no flaw, therefore, in invoking the extended period. 10. Invoking of penalty under rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1994 is not a flaw in the impugned order as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
