TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Wadhwa, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri I. Beg, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. - The facts leading to these appeals and stay applications are, in brief, as under. 1.1 M/s. Northern India Tiles Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NITCO) is a partnership firm engaged in manufacture of various types of tiles - Mosaic tiles, interlocked tiles, kerb stones etc. chargeable to Central Excise duty under sub-heading 6807.90 of the Central Excise tariff. The partners of NITCO are Shri A.N. Talwar (HUF), Shri P.N. Taiwar, Shri Vijay Talwar and Shri Pawan Talwar of which Shri Pawan Talwar is also the authorised signatory. NITCO avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 by which - (a) total duty demand of Rs. 78,50,933/- was confirmed against the appellant firm alongwith interest under Section 11AB; (b) penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant firm under Section 11AC; and (c) penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Pawan Talwar under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 1.4 Against the above order these appeals alongwith stay applications have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay applications. 3. Shri B.L Narasimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the show cause notices themselves mention that the brand name NITCO is registered in the name of the appellant firm since 1964, that in view of this, SSI exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aived for hearing of these appeals and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeals. 4. Shri I. Beg, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, opposed the appellants plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. We find that para 9 and 11 of the show cause notice dated 15-12-09 itself mention that the brand name NITCO belongs to the appellant firm since 1964. In view of this, the appellant firm cannot be accused of affixing the brand name of other person on their goods as the brand name being affixed on their goods is their own. Just becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
