2004 (10) TMI 417 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on the use of a brand name belonging to another person.

In this case, the issue at hand was the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 17,53,191 and Rs. 10,000, respectively. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and penalty, contending that the applicants used the brand name of another person, thus disqualifying them from benefiting from specific SSI Notifications. The department relied on the clearance of goods bearing the brand name "Transpade" to certain customers, alleging that the applicants cleared goods using the proprietary concern's brand name. The applicants argued that they did not clear any goods under the brand name "Transpade" and that the demand was time-barred. The dispute centered on whether the demand was barred by limitation and if the non-disclosure of the brand name constituted suppression allowing the extended period of limitation.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found merit in the applicants' argument regarding the limitation period. Citing a previous ruling in Queen Electrical Industries v. CCE, the Tribunal determined that non-disclosure of the brand name in the declaration did not amount to suppression, aligning with the decision in Intercity Cable System (P) Ltd. v. CCE, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, ordering the stay of recovery pending the appeal.