9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The questions proposed as substantial questions of law in Tax Appeal No. 332 of 2008 read as under : (I) Whether the Hon. CESTAT, Ah'bad is correct in confirming the demand of Rs. 4,18,620/- holding that the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 or 16/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 or 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98 as amended is not available since the goods bare brand name belonging to others? (II) Whether the Hon. CESTAT, Ah'bad is correct in not considering the decision of Hon. CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Quality Steel Industries v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 775, confirmed by the Hon. Supreme Court as reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. A-61 and confirming the order of the lower authority? (III) Whether the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely M/s. Raj Engineers, the same is a partnership firm, wherein Shri Babubhai Patel is a working partner. It is the case of the appellant that clearance of all the three concerns is required to be clubbed in hands of M/s. Sramdeep Industries, proprietary concern of Shri Babubhai Patel, because (1) Shri Babubhai Patel is the person looking after the affairs of all the three concerns; (2) Shri Babubhai Patel is power of attorney holder of Smt. Champaben Patel, proprietor of M/s. Priya Manufacturers; (3) Shri Babubhai Patel is the only person who looks after the affairs of all the three concerns and utilizes the brand names by affixing the same on products manufactured by all the three concerns. It was therefore, submitted that the action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riya" and "Raj" are brand names owned by this firm. (c) M/s. Raj Engineers is a partnership concern with Shri Babubhai V. Patel as one of the partner and the work relating to this form was also being looked after by Shri Babubhai V. Patel. (d) In other words Shri Babubhai V. Patel is looking after the work relating to his own proprietary concern and the proprietary concern in the name of his wife and also the partnership concern namely M/s. Raj Engineers. (e) The products manufactured by the above firms were marketed with the brand name "Priya" and "Raj" and these brand names belonged to M/s. Sramdeep Industries h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the goods were cleared without invoice or a on a bogus/duplicate invoice and, therefore, the findings of evasion of duty by the original adjudicating authority and confirmed by the Commissioner (A) cannot be faulted. The confiscation of the seized goods is also. However, in the light of entire facts and circumstances some leniency is called for in respect of penalty. The appeals are disposed off as follows. (a) Confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 12,12,613/- seized from M/s. Priya Manufacturer is upheld and the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 1.25 lakhs. (b) The duty demand of Rs. 4,18,620/- from M/s. Priya Manufacturer and impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
