9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity wherein a duty demand of Rs. 1,32,919/- along with interest thereon was confirmed against M/s. Chemipol, Dahanu apart from an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Sajjan Kothari, Authorized Signatory of M/s. Chemipol under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further, penalties were imposed of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. and Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Anil Patel, Director of M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. The goods valued at Rs. 2,37,850/- seized at the premises, of M/s. Chemipol were held liable to confiscation and the goods have already been released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/-. Similarly the goods seized from the premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hemipol manufactured and cleared goods bearing the brand name of another and, therefore, the said goods are not eligible for the benefit of aforesaid notification. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty on M/s. Chemipol, Shri Sajjan Kothari, M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. and Shri Anil Patel. The goods seized from the premises of M/s. Chemipol and M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. were also proposed to be confiscated. The notices were adjudicated and the benefit of small scale exemption was denied. A duty demand of Rs. 1,32,919/- was confirmed along with interest thereon against M/s. Chemipol. An equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed on M/s. Chemipol and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on Shri Sajjan Kothari, Authorized Sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f suppression of facts and, therefore, imposition of equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC is not sustainable in law. As regards the penalty imposed on Shri Sajjan Kothari, he is only an employee of the main appellant and imposition of penalty both on the appellant firm and authorized signatory is not warranted. 3.1 As regards penalty imposed on M/s. Electron Industries Ltd., the learned Counsel submits that they are only traders and they are not manufacturers. The liability to pay appropriate duty is on M/s. Chemipol. There is nothing on record to show that they have aided or abetted evasion of duty by M/s. Chemipol and, therefore, imposition of penalty on M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. and its Director Shri Anil Patel is cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is suppression on the part of the appellant in claiming ineligible exemption. He further makes a point that though the brand name is printed on the goods, the same brand name was never mentioned in the invoices issued to M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. though in respect of the same goods sold by the appellant using their own brand name, the same was indicated. This, according to him, indicates the intention of the appellant not to bring on record the sale of goods under a brand name to M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has tried to suppress the facts from the department. Since Shri Sajjan Kothari was an authorized signatory, who was looking after the day-to-day work of M/s. Chemipol and his involveme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red or not, that is to say a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. 5.2 From the definition of brand name as given above, it is clear that the brand name or trade name need not be registered. So long as the said name indicates a connection in the course of trade between the goods and some person using such name it would suffice. The question is whether the name "ELECTRON" printed on the carboys in which the goods are suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accrues and consequently, the appellant is liable to discharge interest liability on the duty demand confirmed against them. 5.2 As regards the liability to confiscation of the goods seized from the premises of M/s. Chemipol and M/s. Electron Industries Ltd., the said goods have been cleared without payment of appropriate duty. Therefore, the goods are correctly liable for confiscation. The question is since the goods have been provisionally released, whether the redemption fine imposed is reasonable or excessive. The redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- has been imposed on M/s. Chemipol in lieu of confiscation in respect of goods valued at Rs. 2,37,850/- and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- has been imposed on M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
