9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 1-3-94 which was approved by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. On 28-3-95 the Supdt., Anti evasion-IV, C. Ex., Pune visited the appellants factory at Panchagani and recorded the statement of Shri Mustaq Jainuddin Sheikh, Accounts officer of the appellant firm manufacture of "Fruity Sweets" by the appellants. He deposed the manufacturing process of "Fruity Sweets" sold under the brand name of the Mapro Foods, a brand name not owned by M/s. Vora Products but owned by M/s. Mapro Foods, Mahableshwar. Fruits Sweets valued at Rs. 3,02,598/- lying in the factory, duly accounted in the RG 1, were seized on 29-3-95 on the grounds that "Fruity Sweets" bore brand name of "Mapro, Mahableshwar" which was not owned or registered by appellants bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible to SSI benefit, if brand name of another person not eligible for exemption is being used notwithstanding the fact the goods are of different kind which are being manufactured by Brand name owner and the alleged SSI. He also found that in the present case, even if it was assumed that the brand name was used from October '94 only, it will be of any consequence as "Mapro" being the common words for the two units an impression was created in the minds of the public that the unit manufacturing "Fruity Sweets" belonged to a group of persons associated with "Mapro foods" only. He also found that as regard suppression the appellants never disclosed the fact of using brand name of another person for their product and this should be held to prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al being granted by him. In such a case, it should be brought on record as to what positive act of nonfeasance by the manufacturer or and his agent which resulted in incorrect approvals and is being considered as a reason to invoke a longer period. We do not find any justification for invoking a longer period in the facts of this case. The demand therefore for the month of March '1995 could only be upheld. (c) We find that the reworking of the demand, for the above period, as per the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 has to be undertaken. In this view of the matter we would set aside the order and remand the matter back to the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
