9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - There are conflicting decisions of various Tribunals, High Courts and even Supreme Court on the subject of entitlement of SSI benefit in respect of goods cleared with brand name - the appellant will be entitled to the bonafide belief that the goods cleared with Varuna brand will also be entitled to the benefit. Consequently, the Revenue will not be entitled to invoking the suppression clause in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for alleging suppression. On merit, the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of SSI notification but the show cause notice for demand of duty has been issued on 15/07/2009 for covering the demands for the period upto 29/01/2008. Consequently no demand will survive within the normal time limit. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... una were seized in the reasonable belief that the appellant was proposing to clear such goods without payment of duty. Vide Panchnama dated 01/02/2008 the show cause notice issued proposing confiscation of the seized goods was decided by the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 15/04/2010 which was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner. The seized goods were ordered for confiscation and penalties were also imposed. 3. After completion of investigation, another show cause notice dated 15/07/2009 was issued proposing demand of central excise duty total amounting of ₹ 16,69,955/- for clearances made during the period 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 (upto 29/01/2008). This show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entitled to the benefit of the SSI notification in as much as the brand name stands permitted to be used by the owner of the said brand name. Under such circumstances, she claimed that the goods are to be considered as manufactured with their own brand name. For the proposition that the SSI units will be entitled to the benefit in respect of goods made with brand name assigned /authorized to the unit, she placed reliance on the following case laws :- Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2016 (340) E.L.T. 67 (P H) ; M/s Kusum Industries vs. CCE Final Order No. 50319-50322 of 2018 dated 25/01/2018 ; and CCE vs. Vikshara Trading Invest P. Ltd. 2003 (157) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). 7. The learned Departmental Representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to usage will be entitled to the benefit. 9. We have heard both sides and perused the record. 10. The appellant was admittedly an SSI unit availing the benefit of notification during the period of dispute i.e. 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The dispute revolves around the goods manufactured and cleared bearing the brand name Varuna . It is not in dispute that the brand name Varuna is not owned by the appellant but belongs to M/s La Gajjar Machineries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad. The appellant has claimed that the owner of the brand name has authorized the appellant to use such brand name in the goods to be manufactured. In this factual matrix, the decision on question of SSI benefit is to be decided in the light of the law prevalent during the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cleared with brand name. Under the circumstance, we are of the view that the appellant will be entitled to the bonafide belief that the goods cleared with Varuna brand will also be entitled to the benefit. Consequently, we hold that the Revenue will not be entitled to invoking the suppression clause in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for alleging suppression. 13. On merit, we hold that the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of SSI notification but the show cause notice for demand of duty has been issued on 15/07/2009 for covering the demands for the period upto 29/01/2008. Consequently no demand will survive within the normal time limit. 14. Before we part with the matter, it is required to give finding on the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
