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

2007 (7) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is, "whether the omission to declare the use of brand name of another person in the classification list can lead to application of extended period of time". 2. The show cause notice dated 21-4-1995 raising a demand for the period April, 1990 to Nov. 1994 alleged that the assessees had suppressed the fact that they were affixing sticker labels and ink stamps containing monogram of Ram's ® registered in the name of M/s. Rammaica Co. (India) Ltd. on plywood, flush doors and black board manufactured by them, from the excisable authorities. The assessee refuted this allegation and contended that there was no requirement under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules of mentioning brand name in the classification list and in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in could not be charged with suppression of facts so as to demand duty by invoking longer period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Such finding was arrived at on the basis that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that they were eligible to exemption under Notification No. 175/86 since the brand name "Shyam" used on their product was not owned and registered by any other person in respect of identical goods, in the light of Board's clarification dated 30-12-1988 and in the case of Precise Electronics reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 69, the Tribunal also held that there was sufficient force in the appellant's contention that in terms of Rule 173B no responsibility was cast on them to declare the tra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of SSI exemption is approved by a proper officer, it should be brought on record as to what positive act of nonfeasance was committed by the manufacturer or his agent which resulted in incorrect approvals and considered by the department as the reason to invoke the longer period of limitation. 4.1 In the case of CCE v. Chemphar Drugs Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required to be established before it is saddled with any liability, beyond the period of six months. In the case of Prolite Engineering Co. [1995 (7 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ho pleaded that they cannot be held guilty of suppression because the department was aware that the brand name shown thereon belong to M/s. Dai Ichi. The Tribunal negatived this contention on the ground that the appellants were aware that the brand name shown on their goods belonged to M/s. Dai lchi and still used such brand name, and hence there was no need for any further enquiry and they should have in the very first instance disclosed the factual position to the excise authorities in view of the clear cut provision in para 4 of Notification 1/93 for claiming benefit of SSI exemption. 5.2 In the case of Vax Institute Laboratory Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta [2001 (138) E.L.T. 811] the assessee filed classification list in which there was no me .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (122) E.L.T. 891 no contention was raised by the assessee that there was no provision in Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules for disclosure of brand name in the classification list. There was a positive false assertion in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Ajay Footwear (I) Ltd. [2001 (129) E.L.T. 704], and the Tribunal held that intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the assessee was clear from the fact that it went on declaring use of brand name 'Flash' belonging to a different group company on its goods, so long as use of brand name belonging to another manufacturer eligible to exemption did not entail denial of SSI exemption to the assessee but stopped declaring the same when Notification 1/93-C.E. was amended and the mere fact of .....

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