9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Applicant 1. 2. These franchisors themselves belong to Parle Group of Companies. For the period of Feb 99 to Nov 93, Revenue felt that applicant had not paid excise duty applicable properly on various grounds and therefore two show cause notices dt. 28-2-94 and 24-09-94 were issued. On adjudication, duty amount of Rs.59,36,765/- stands confirmed against applicant No.1 along with interest and penalties. There is a penalty of Rs.1 lakh on applicant No.2. 3. The counsel for the applicants submits that the demand can be broadly classified into three heads namely (i) allegation of clandestine removal involving duty amount of Rs.9,61,561/- (ii) allegation of wrong availment of SSI exemption for goods using brand name Bisleri Club Soda involving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the allegation in the SCN was that the brand name owner, AMPL was not manufacturing the said item and therefore they were not eligible for the exemption under Notification 175/86-CE and since brand name owner was not eligible for notification 175/86, the applicant could not have availed the SSI exemption. However, he points out that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that brand name was owned by M/s. Parle (Exports) Ltd. (PEL, for short) and not AMPL which is actually beyond the scope of the SCN originally issued. He also pleads that the arrangement between AMPL and PEL was not known to the applicant and the applicant claimed the SSI exemption in a bonafide manner. He points out that on identical set of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verages (P) Ltd. (supra). 7. He further submits that the applicants had submitted price lists and classification lists of the brand name owners, namely, LFFL, approved by Central Excise officers having jurisdiction over the respective factories to show that the brand name owners were eligible for small scale exemption. The classification lists submitted by the applicants were also approved by department. No evidence to prove that applicants being aware of any suppression on the part of brand name owner put forth by Revenue. So he submits that entire demand is time-barred. 8. Further, he points out that already an amount of Rs.10,68,684/- has been appropriated from a refund due to the applicant against entire demand and this may be treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter and LFFPL was established only to avail exemption. He submits that the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Parle Bisleri Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (263) ELT 15 (SC) is applicable only to group companies and not the applicant who is only a franchisee. 11. We have considered the submissions on both sides. Broadly, we find that the allegation regarding clandestine removal is based only on the Sales Manager Report (SMR) and not corroborated by evidences showing clandestine manufacture and clearance. The sharing of budget expenditure for advertisement does not provide any better evidence. In the case of manufacturers similarly placed, appeals have been already decided in their favour. So, it may not be proper to call for any substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
