TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture LPG stoves under their own brand names Snap and Trendy ; that along side these brand names, they were also mentioning A SKN Product ; that since their goods were bearing their own brand names, they were availing the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., that however the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, under Adjudication Order No. 83/97, dated 26-11-1997 confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,37,819/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for the period from 1994-95 to 1996-97, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs and confiscated the goods worth Rs. 4,51,200/- seized from their premises with an option to the Appellants to redeem the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s : (i) Palsons Drugs Chemical Industries v. C.C.E. - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 665 (ii) Om Enterprises v. C.C.E., Pune - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 127 (iii) Chemguard Coatings Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chennai, 2000 (116) E.L.T. 43 (iv) Emkay Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 741 (v) Dharni Cement Ltd. v. C.C.E., Trichy - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 840. 4. Finally the ld. Advocate mentioned that extended period of limitation under Proviso to Section 11A(1) is not invokable as the Appellants did not commit any fraud, mis-statement or suppression of facts; they had no intent to evade payment of duty as they were clearing the goods under their own brand name; that accordingly there was no reason for confiscation of goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... become indistinguishable. In the market, they will be understood as one and the same goods. They no longer, need the benefit under the Notification . 6. The ld. DR, also distinguished the cases, relied upon by the ld. Advocate. For example he mentioned that in Chemguard Coating case, name of the foreign company was mentioned which had supplied the technology and had licensed the Appellant therein to manufacture the goods in accordance with the Technology; that in Om Enterprises case, a metal plate was affixed which contained the information i.e. the name of the Company which would do marketing and servicing of fans and not like the present matter where a relation is intended with the brand name SKN belonging to other. He concluded his s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their own brand name, the mischief of Paragraph 4 is attracted and the Appellants will not be eligible for the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The use of these words A SKN PRODUCT clearly indicate a connection in the course of trade between the impugned goods and M/s. SKN Gas Appliances Ltd. As rightly pointed out by ld. D.R., the Appellate Authority had mentioned that these words were to indicate a reference relating to the group. The Supreme Court in Paliwal Electricals case gave the reason d etre for not extending the benefit of small-scale exemption to the goods affixed with the brand name of another person. The Court observed that once the brand name of other person is affixed, the goods become indis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
