Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 946 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of brand name of other person - ‘Sudarshan’ - N/N. 08/03-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Held that:- The lower authorities have not properly considered the verification report, invoice and relevant documents. As regard 5 machines which appellant had claimed that the same is not bearing the brand name of ‘Sudarshan’ i.e. of another person, whereas 5 machines are bearing name of ‘Mohansons’ of their own, therefore, on these 5 machines no demand should have been confirmed. However, both the authorities have not properly verified these documents and given proper findings, therefore this needs to be re-considered by the adjudicating authority and demand should be re-quantified - matter on remand. Cum duty benefit - Held that:- It is settled law as held in Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in case of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd [2002 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT], whenever demand is confirmed, the cum duty should be extended to the assessee, accordingly, we hold that appellant is entitled for the cum duty benefit. Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- Since both the lower authorities have not considered the option of 25% penalty as provided under proviso to Section 11AC and the same can be re-considered. Penalty on partner - Held that:- Since the partnership firm has been penalised, no separate penalty can be imposed on the partner as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of M/s Pravin N. Shah Vs. CESTAT [2012 (7) TMI 850 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], therefore, penalty on partner is set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
|