2005 (1) TMI 478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellants are engaged in the manufacture of water filter. On 16-9-98 the officers of Revenue department visited the factory of the appellant and it was found that 1216 water filters lying in factory which were not entered in their statutory record. The water filters were seized by the Revenue authorities. The adjudicating authority confiscated the water filters on the ground that these were not entered in their statutory records and ordered to release the goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty was also imposed. The central excise duty was also confirmed in respect of the water filters. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of small scale exemption notification as the brand name und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, the contention of the appellant is that the benefit was rightly granted to them. 7. The contention of the Revenue is that the 1216 water filters were received in the factory in December 1996 which were cleared in the month of August 1998 without payment of duty. The contention is that during the relevant period as per the Board's Circular dated 10-8-81 clarified that the period for clearance of such goods without payment of duty is six months after the receipt of the factory. As the appellant had not obtained necessary permission for extension of the period, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the clearance of the goods without payment of duty. The contention of the Revenue is that as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uired after six months to retain the duty paid returned goods in the factory and the appellant had not asked for any permission from the competent authority to retain the goods after a specified period, the demand is also rightly made. In these circumstances we find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, hence dismissed. 9. In respect of the appeal filed by Revenue in view of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 21-6-2000, the brand name belongs to the appellant, therefore, they were rightly granted benefit of small scale exemption notification. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. In view of the above decision, the appeals are dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X