2002 (1) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant No. (1) submitted that they manufactured components of energy storage systems bearing the brand name "CRISTOPIA"; that the demand of duty has been made for the period from January, 1997 to June, 2000 on the ground that they were manufacturing the goods bearing the brand name of a foreign Company and accordingly denying them the benefit of SSI Exemption. Ld. Advocate mentioned that for the purpose of stay petition, he is not arguing on the use of brand name; that he will be representing the appeal only on the aspect that the demand is hit by time limit; that the entire demand is based on collaboration agreement entered into by the appellant No. (1) with M/s. Crist....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty paid on the inputs which have gone into in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. 3. K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant No. 2 submitted that Shri C.M. Gupta, Executive Director is a paid employee of the Company and he is not a person referred to in Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules since he is not concerned with transporting, removing, depositing, selling or in any other manner dealing with the excisable goods in question; that the penalty could be imposed under this rule only if the person knows or has reason to believe that goods are liable to confiscation; that he was under the bona fide belief that the brand name belongs to the appellant company and as such no duty was payable b....