9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgments of the Tribunal affirmed by the Apex Court that the benefit of Notification cannot be denied merely because that the brand name used and affixed by them happen to be the brand name of another person. However, he points out that the latest judgment of the apex court in the case of CCE v. Grasim Industries - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 is against the party. It has been held therein that use of brand or trade name of another person will disentitle the party from the benefit of SSI Notification. However, he points out that in the present case, the demands pertain to the period 1996-1998, the department had drawn Mahazar on 13-2-1998 and the show cause notice was issued on 9-8-1998 invoking larger period. He submits that the appellants were under bona fide belief that their application for registration of the said brand name would be accepted and even otherwise there were several judgments during the period in assessee's favour granting the benefit of SSI Notification. He relies on the following judgment wherein the benefit of time-bar has been granted. He also pleads that they are entitled for the benefit of cum-duty and Modvat credit. The written submissions made with regard to ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2003 (55) R.L.T. 1 (SC) 7. Ambika Steel Rolling Mills - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 15 (Del) 8. Thermo Electrics - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 92 (T) 9. Applied Industrial Products - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 364 (Kar) 10. Raymond Cement Works - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 346 (T) 11. Tamilnadu Housing Board - 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1998 (27) RLT 230 (h) New Vikram Cement - 1998 (27) RLT 474 (i) Jana Jeevan Foods (P) Ltd. - 1999 (30) RLT 686 (j) Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. - 1998 (27) RLT 419 (k) Gurunanak Steel & Allied Industries - 2001 (42) RLT 37(T) (l) Aldowin & Others &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period of limitation not invocable - Section 11A of CEA, 1944. 6. 2006 (201) E.L.T. 27 - Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Impression of non-excisability prevailed during material period among assessees and officers - Decisions during material period favouring assessee - Charge of suppression of facts not sustainable - Extended period of limitation not invocable - Demands hit by time bar. 14. In the case of M/s. Grasim Industries M/s. Rukimini Packwell Traders M/s. Mahan Dairy etc., the original decisions of the Tribunal were all in favour of the appellant as it was held by the Tribunal in those cases that the benefit cannot be denied if the brand name/trade name is affixed is of a different class. These ratio decisions were reversed by Apex Court only recently. Hence the ratio decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mentha and Allied Products Limited reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 494 is clearly applicable as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that larger time limit is not invocable when different views are expressed at different stages by various judicial forums. Hence the demand for extended period is clearly barred by limitation and assuming but not admitting duty is pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmal limitation. Penalty on Sri.B.L. Narayanaswamy 4. As per the ratio decision of Grasim Industries cited supra, and number of other ratio decisions, no penalty can be imposed when there are conflicting decisions and hence the penalty on Sri B.L. Narayanaswamy is also liable to be set aside. 5. It is also well settled law that penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously on partnership firm and individual partners. Shyam Traders - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 95 Darshan C Sanghvi v. CCE - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 676 Alfa Ceramics -2002 (145) E.L.T. 454 Swem Industries -2003 (154) E.L.T. 417 Compusoft - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 241 Kamdeep Marketing -2004 (165) E.L.T. 206 Sarpin Pharmacal - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 472 Ramashyama Papers - 2004 (63) RLT 130 Vinaykumar Baid - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 33 J.B. Industries - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 316 6. We therefore pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned order with consequential benefit as per law. He submits that the demands have to be restricted for six months in the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the written submissions. 3. Heard learned JDR, who submits that they are not eligible for the SS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
