Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (7) TMI 435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... leviable on such goods. It has further been found by the Tribunal that some of the goods have been cleared without invoice or under a bogus/duplicate invoice. It is in this context that the findings of evasion of duty by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) have been confirmed by the Tribunal. Hence, in absence of any error of law having been committed by the Tribunal, the impugned order does not merit interference. None of the questions, as proposed or otherwise, can be termed to be a question of law, much less a substantial question of law so as to entertain the appeal. - 31 to 33 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2008 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. [Judgment per : D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)]. - All these three appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... brand name "Priya" belongs to M/s. Sramdeep Industries, though the department has not produced any evidence to prove such ownership and hence, 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. (V) Whether the Hon. CESTAT Ah'bad is justified in upholding the Redemption Fine of Rs. 25,000/-? Whether the Hon. CESTAT, Ah'bad is justified in upholding the Penalty of Rs. 4,18,620/-? (VII) Whether the Hon. CESTAT, Ah'bad is correct in not extending the benefit of cum-duty-price? 3. On behalf of the appellants, it is submitted that one Shri Babubhai Vaghji Patel is the proprietor of a concern named M/s. Sramdeep Industries who is the owner of brand n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... if a concern has used the brand name belonging to another concern is not correct in law considering the decision of Tribunal in the case of Quality Steel Industries v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 775 (Tribunal), which has since been confirmed by the Apex Court as reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. A61 The learned advocate therefore, urged that the impugned order of CESTAT, Delhi is not correct considering the settled legal position. 4. The Tribunal has recorded the following facts in the impugned order. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows. (a) M/s. Priya Manufacturer, a proprietary concern of Smt. Champaben B. Patel is engaged in manufacturing of machine tools and machinery like blowers, grin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... val submissions. It is not in dispute that the brand names "Priya" and "Raj" belong to M/s. Sramdeep Industries, and the goods were cleared during the relevant period by the other two firms had the brand name of "Priya" and "Raj". The reasons given for treating the clearances from M/s. Priya Manufacturer or M/s. Raj Engineers as belonging to M/s. Sramdeep Industries only are not convincing. Therefore, in view of the condition contained in Para 4 of Exemption Notification No. 1/93 C.E. and similar condition contained in other SSI exemption notifications, the benefit of exemption notification was not available to them in respect of goods cleared and manufactured under brand name "Priya" and "Raj". Also the manufacturing activity of branding g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Tribunal has found as a matter of fact that the manufacturing activity of branded goods was willfully suppressed from the department with an intention to evade duty of excise leviable on such goods. It has further been found by the Tribunal that some of the goods have been cleared without invoice or under a bogus/duplicate invoice. It is in this context that the findings of evasion of duty by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) have been confirmed by the Tribunal. 7. In light of the aforestated findings, it is not possible to accept the submission that the decision in case of Quality Steel Industries (supra) can be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In fact, in paragraph No. 17 of the decision, it has ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates