TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant’s argument that CBEC Circular No. 71/71/94-CX. allows use of brand name on the ‘castings’ as a trade practice and also allows benefit of SSI exemption is of no consequence - It is on record that the Order-in-Original No. 46/2011 dated 18.3.2011 passed in this case gave the option to the appellant of reduced penalty of 25% as per the proviso to Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the appellant did not make use of the said option which was statutorily available as per the provisions of Section 11AC ibid - penalty upheld - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/136/2012-SM - Final Order No. 53104/2017 - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate - for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove background, heard both the sides, represented by ld. Counsels, Shri Kumar Vikram for the appellant and Shri G.R. Singh for Revenue. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellant inter alia submits that penalty is not liable to be paid as they were under the impression that duty is not payable in their case, though they were using the brand name of other company. He also cites Circular No. 71/71/94-CX dated 27.10.94 saying that as in the case of castings , use of brand name is to be allowed along with the benefit of SSI exemption. In support he cites following case laws : (i) CCE Vs. York Refrigeration India Ltd. - 2016 (339) ELT 86 (Tri.-Mumbai); (ii) CCE Vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. 2004 (168) ELT 466 (Tri.-LB). 5. Ld. Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) holding that if the provisions of Section 11AC are applicable the equivalent penalty is imposable. In the case of CCE, Visakhapatnam Vs. Mehta Co. - 2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC), the Hon ble Apex Court has observed that there could be some facts and circumstances where extended period for charging Central Excise duty is applicable. Further, the Hon ble Apex Court in this case observed that : 23 . Although, the respondent has pleaded that it was done out of ignorance, but in our considered opinion there appears to be an intention to evade excise duty and contravention of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, proviso of Section 11A(i) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
