9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') holding that the authorities had rightly denied small scale exemption to Reiz Electrocontrols Pvt. Ltd. (in short the 'REPL') and Reiz Enterprises (in short the 'RE'). It was further held that the demands of duty from them and imposition of penalty as well as interest levied under Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act') and Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Rules') do not suffer from any infirmity. However, the case was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for re-computing the duty demands and re-determining penalty. However, in the light of observations made, penalties imposed on Shri Atul Agarwal and Sh. Siddarth Agarwal under Rule 209A were set aside. 2.The back ground facts in a nutshell are as follows : M/s. RE is a proprietary concern of Shri Atul Agarwal and is engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Fan Regulators, Dimmers and Remote Control Switches under the brand name 'REIZ' since 1988. In the year 1993, M/s. REPL was constituted with Shri Atul Agarwal and his two brothers Shri Siddarth Agarwal and Shri Ravindra Agarwal as its Directors. M/s. REPL was engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat electronic transformers manufactured by the REPL were not manufactured under the brand name of another person. 4.The demands in the present case were raised under extended period permitted in the proviso 11A of the Act, on the ground that, the non-levy in the result of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. It was contended that there was no suppression of facts in as much as both the manufacturers had filed declaration before the Central Excise authorities that goods are manufactured under the brand name belonging to them and brand name of another person is not used. It is also stressed that both the units are located in the same building in the jurisdiction of same Central Excise Superintendent and therefore, the facts of the cases were known to the Central Excise authorities and a change of suppression of facts is not maintainable. 5.The respondents pointed out that in view of the specific prescriptions in the Notification the demands have been rightly raised. 6.As noted above the contentions did not find acceptance by Tribunal and, therefore, the impugned order was passed. 7.Stands before the Tribunal were reiterated by learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppended to amending notification says so in so many words. If necessary, the Court could have called upon the Central Government to establish the reasons behind the amendment. (It did not think it fit to do so). It is equally necessary to bear in mind, as pointed out repeatedly by this Court, that in economic and taxation sphere, a large latitude should be allowed to the legislature. The courts should bear in mind the following observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in R.K. Garg v. Union of India [1981 (4) SCC 675]: (SCC pp. 690-91, para 8) "Another rule of equal importance is that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc. It has been said by no less a person than Holmes, J. that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints, because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait-jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has to be al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against such distortions and abuses. Indeed, howsoever great may be the care bestowed on its framing, it is difficult to conceive of a legislation which is not capable of being abused by perverted human ingenuity. The Court must therefore adjudge the constitutionality of such legislation by the generality of its provisions and not by its crudities or inequities or by the possibilities of abuse come to light, the legislature can always step in and enact suitable amendatory legislation. That is the essence of pragmatic approach which must guide and inspire the legislature in dealing with complex economic issues." The same principle should hold good in11. the matter of exemption notifications as well, for the said power is part and parcel of the enactment and is supposed to be employed to further the objects of enactment - subject, of course, to the condition that the notification is not ultra vires the Act, and/or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (See P.J. Irani v. State of Madras [(1962) 2 SCR 169]". 11.In Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2005 (189) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.)] it was held as follows at para 3 : "Paragraph 4 and Explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ark registered then they would become entitle to the benefit of the Notification in accordance with Board's Circular No. 88/88, dated 13-12-1988." 14.Similarly in Bhalla's case (supra) it was observed as follows : According to the learned Counsel"17. appearing on behalf of the respondents the documents on the basis of which the impugned demand has been raised against the respondent were available with the Department as on the date of the seizure. There was as such no question of holding any further investigation into any further fact for the issue of the demand on the allegation that the assessees had wrongly availed of the exemption. The only investigation which was held related to the question whether the respondent was a dummy unit of Corona Plus Industries. It is submitted that the Department cannot take advantage of the investigation held in such connection to justify a time-barred claim relating to the first issue. In any event it is submitted that the respondent-firm had all along contended that it was also the owner of the brand name/trade mark in question. In fact, the application made by the respondent for registration of the trade mark in question, namely, "Saving Pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
