9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed it. Shri Ravi Gupta, Director of the firm, appellants No. 1 even admitted in his statement regarding the use of the brand name "ALASKA" belonging to another person in the manufacture of the goods. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the appellants vide which differential duty of Rs. 16,90,578/- for the period from 1-4-1995 to 27-7-1998 was demanded. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 16,90,578.19 with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC through the order-in-original by denying the SSI Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 on account of user of brand name on the goods belonged to another person. The adjudicating authority also ordered confiscation of the seized goods with option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. Personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on appellant No. 2 under Rule 209A. This order of the adjudicating authority had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) subject to the reduction in the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. 4.The learned Counsel has contended that there is no evidence on the record to prove that the brand name 'ALASKA' belonged to another pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that his company had been claiming the benefit of SSI exemption till the year 1996-97 and after that the company started paying full rate of duty for having exceeded the exemption limit of Rs. 3 crores. His this statement was recorded on 1-9-1998. On the same lines had been the statement of Manager of the company, Shri Madhu Sudan. Therefore, the appellants were not legally entitled to use the brand name 'ALASKA' which belonged to the company, M/s. Vinko Auto Indus. They had been illegally and unauthorisedly using this brand name on their goods and availing the SSI Exemption. 8.The plea of the appellants that w.e.f. 1-7-1997, they had obtained assignment of the brand name from the owner i.e. M/s. Vinko Auto Indus, Ltd. and from that date they were entitled to use the same and as such could not be denied SSI Exemption, had been rightly not accepted by the authorities below. The alleged assignment dated 1-7-1997 propounded by the appellants, is nothing but a fake document. The copy of this deed has been placed on record which is at page 58. It had been scribed on a stamp paper of Rs. 50, but on the back of that stamp paper neither there is a date of sale nor the name of the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignment deed had been prepared later on by the appellants in connivance with the company, M/s. Vinko Auto Indus. Ltd. just with a view to defraud the Excise Department and as such it has been rightly brushed aside by both the authorities below. 10.The learned Counsel has heavily leaned on the certificate dated 12-1-1999 issued under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in favour of the appellants acknowledging the transfer of the brand name "ALASKA" in their name from 1-7-1996 by virtue of assignment dated 1-7-1996 to contend that the genuineness of the assignment deed could not be questioned by the authorities below. But we are unable to accept his contention. The perusal of this certificate shows that whatever facts were alleged by the appellants in the form, TM-23, dated 14-9-1998, those were accepted by the Joint Registrar without examining the genuineness of the assignment deed. He accepted the transfer of the brand name in favour of the appellants without holding any enquiry into the matter. But for the purpose of central excise duty, the appellants were duty bound to prove the due execution and genuineness of the assignment deed before they could be allowed to take it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the adjudicating authority. It is only an afterthought plea which has to be ignored at this stage. 14.Yet another contention of the Counsel for the appellants that the duty demand is time-barred as appellants had been using the brand name 'ALASKA' since 1988 and this fact was within the knowledge of the Revenue authorities and that in the Classification List of the year 1994-95, it was also mentioned that the brand name 'ALASKA' belonged to M/s. Vinko Auto Indus. Ltd. and as such the Revenue authorities very well knew that the use of the brand name of another person by the appellants cannot be given any weight for holding the duty demand to be time-barred. There is no material on the record to suggest if the appellants ever in clear terms informed the Excise Department that the brand name 'ALASKA', being used by them, belonged to M/s. Vinko Auto Indus. Ltd. The use of this brand name, since 1988, as contended by the learned Counsel also does not stand proved from any tangible evidence on the record. In their Form L-4 dated 27-1-1988, there is no reference to the brand name to be used by them on the excisable goods i.e. Rice Rubber Roles and Rice Polishers. The copy of the ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
