TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut affixing any brand name. Both the varieties of goods were also sold to the same trader. He explains (and draws our specific attention to para 8 of the impugned order) that demand of duty has been made in respect of goods irrespective of whether affixed with the brand name/trade name or not. He submits that this is a clear error in law. Para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86 excluded only those goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of the exemption under this notification. He submits that the goods which were cleared without the manufacturer affixing the brand name of the buyer should have been allowed the exemption. Shri Jain also submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi in the case of Ambica Steel Rolling Mills v. CEGAT [1991 (52) E.L.T. 15 (Delhi)] in support of his submission that where non-payment of duty is on account of mis-interpretation of notifications and not on account of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, extended period is not invokable. He also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals v. C.C.E., Bombay [1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held that the omission to supply relevant facts must be deliberate to escape from payment of duty for invoking the extended period under Section 11A and that where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty on goods removed to the trader without affixing the brand name was clearly unjustified. The cases are therefore required to be reconsidered from this angle by the adjudicating authority particularly in view of the finding recorded in the adjudication order itself that goods cleared by the dealer irrespective of whether they had been affixed with the brand name or not will be liable to duty. We also are not able to accept the submission of the appellants that the demands are time barred. The notification has excluded the goods which were affixed with the brand name of another person. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had disclosed the fact of part of the clearances being affixed with the brand name of another person t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
