Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 843 - CESTAT NEW DELHISSI exemption - use of brand name of others - Held that: - The claim of small scale industries benefit was originally availed by the appellant by submitting that brand name is owned by M/s. Limca Flavour and Fragrance Ltd., who were entitled to SSI benefit. But the investigation conducted by the department has revealed that the brand name is owned and controlled not by Limca Flavour and Fragrance Ltd., but by M/s. Parle Exports Ltd. who were not entitled to small scale industries exemption benefit. Since the goods have been cleared with the brand name of Citra which is owned by M/s. Parle Exports Ltd. (who are not entitled to SSI benefit), the contravention of conditions specified in para 7 of Notification 175/1986 (para 4 of the succeeding notification No. 1/1993) stand established, disentitling the appellant from SSI benefit. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - We find justification in invoking the extended period of time limit inasmuch as the appellant has failed to reveal who is the real owner of Citra brand name. It is only after the investigation undertaken by the department, it has been revealed that the Citra brand is actually owned by M/s. Parle Exports Ltd. who is not entitled to SSI benefit. Consequently, the invocation of extended time limit is fully justified. Coming to the demand for the period June to November, 1993 for which the show cause notice has been issued on 3.1.1994, we are of the view that decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] comes to the help of appellant. In the said decision, the Apex Court has held that once a Show cause notice stand issued, issuance of second show cause notice on the same facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of assessee. In respect of second show cause notice, we find that a portion of demand fall beyond the period of normal time limit as prescribed under section 11A at the relevant time. Consequently, the demand in the second show cause notice beyond the period of six months will be hit by time bar. The original adjudicating authority is directed to requantify the demand by excluding the demand beyond the period of six months time. However, demand covered by the first show cause notice is upheld in toto along with consequential relief. We also set aside the penalty imposed under second show cause notice. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|