Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1220 - AT - Central ExciseReal manufacturer - Duty demand - whether the goods under dispute did not bear the brand name “Deep”? - penalty imposed - Held that:- The main appellant was registered with the Directorate of Industry right from 1985. Similarly, Deep Metal Works was also registered with the Directorate of Industry with effect from 13-3-1990. We have also gone through the various invoices under dispute. All the invoices very clearly state the main appellant as the manufacturer of stainless steel articles. We also note that Shri Prakash Nahar has very clearly admitted in his statement that both the units are manufacturing cutlery items and he is looking after the day-to-day work of both the units. There has been no averment on his part that the main appellant, i.e. Deep Engineering Works, was a trading unit or was getting the goods manufactured from Deep Metal Works. We observe that such a stand has been taken by the main appellant only after the issuance of show cause notice. Even in reply to the show cause notice, though they have taken such a stand, they were not able to prove anything about the procurement of either the finished products or the raw material and related payment details from anyone. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the main appellant is one of the manufacturing unit and has manufactured the goods under dispute, as has been claimed by them even, in the declaration filed by them as also in the various statements of Shri Prakash Nahar who was looking after both the units The learned Counsel for the main appellant has argued that the goods were not seized by the visiting Excise officer. This itself proves that the finished goods did not bear any brand name. We are not convinced with this argument. First of all, the duty is not demanded in respect of the finished goods found during the visit of the officers but on their past declarations. Further, there is no indication whatsoever that the goods were not bearing the brand name. On the contrary, the statement recorded on that very day clearly indicates that the goods of both the units bear the brand name “Deep”. Under the circumstances, we reject the said contention of the appellant. We also note that the fact that the goods manufactured by the main appellant bear the brand name of other person was not disclosed to the department and this is a clear-cut suppression of facts. In fact the appellant has not even taken the Central Excise registration with the department. In such a situation, in our view, extended period of limitation would be clearly applicable. Once the goods are bearing the brand name of other person, the main appellant was not entitled for the SSI exemption and it was their duty to take the Central Excise registration and pay the duty. It is also stated that the sole proprietorship business firm is not a sui juris and it cannot be a party any proceedings. We note that the declaration was filed in the name of Deep Engineering Works and the notice was issued in the same name. The main appellant has replied and participated in the proceedings till date and under the circumstances, we do not find any force in the argument of the main appellant. As far as the role of Shri Bharat Shah is concerned, it is clear from the details that he was aware that the goods are bearing the brand name and was therefore liable to pay duty and the goods were also confiscable, but as the goods had been cleared long back, the same could not have been confiscated. The penalty imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules is in order. We also find that Shri Prakash Nahar has been looking after both the units’ day-to-day activities and even during investigation he has agreed to pay the duty, but still he has not paid the duty. Undoubtedly, he has dealt with the goods in respect of which the demand has been raised. He was aware that the goods are bearing the brand name of other company and the penalty has been correctly imposed under Rule 209A on appellant No. 3.
|