9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee as per the decision rendered by the Tribunal. There was also doubts and confusions with regard to the valuation to be made in case of goods which are sold on the basis of MRP - the appellant had adopted valuation under section 4A relying upon the decision of the Tribunal prevailing at the time. SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - Held that: - The Trademark belongs to Shri Pichai Rajagopal who is also partner in M/s. Saravana Dairy Products since the appellants are not eligible for exemption as the value of clearances exceeds one crore when assessed under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, this issue is not dealt with. The learned consultant did not advance any argument on this second issue. There are no sufficient grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the valuation has to be adopted under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the provision of section 4A would not be applicable. That when computing the value of the clearances for the disputed period on the basis of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the value of the clearances exceeded the threshold limit of SSI exemption benefit. A show cause notice was issued alleging the above including the allegation of use of brand name of another. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty along with penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the demand of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order. 4. The learned counsel has contested only the imposition of penalty under section 11AC. We take note of the fact that during the relevant period, the decision in the case of Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was in favour of the assessee as per the decision rendered by the Tribunal. There was also doubts and confusions with regard to the valuation to be made in case of goods which are sold on the basis of MRP. We do accept the arguments of the appellant that they were under bonafide belief and that there was no deliberate intention to evade payment of duty. In the case of Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after considering detail the provisions of Standards of Weight and Measures Act, 1976 and Packaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
