TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8421.00 cleared during the period from September 1987 to December 1990 on the ground that the assessee was not eligible to the benefit of Small Scale exemption in terms of Notification No 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 since they were using registered Trade mark "PALL" or "ULTIPOR" of M/s Pall Process Filtration Ltd. UK, which is a foreign company not entitled to avail of SSI exemption under Notification No 175/86. The Collector has imposed a penalty of Rs.six lakhs on the assessees. 2E/Appeal No 4398/92-B has been filed by the. Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who has set aside the order, dated 19-2-91 of the Assistant Collector on the classification list No 1/90-91 with effect from 1-4-1990 wherein he denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al i.e. filter paper is mounted on the rod/shaft fitted on the stand by the side of the press. The said stand has got two more shaftings, one above and one below. On this shafting, the roll of glassine paper is provided. 2. The operator manually pulls all the three layers together i.e. two layers of glassine paper and in between one layer of filter paper and brings the said three layers on the platform of the cutting press. 3. Thereafter, the operator either manually brings the dye downwards with the help of handle or he operates with a foot-switch connected with the electric motor as a result whereof, the said dye comes downwards and cuts all the three layers together. Many a times, the appellant company is cutting only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated from colloidal particles.' The inputs cannot be used for specific purpose achieved by the final product without undergoing the process as set out above unlike mere cutting of jumbo roll films into smaller lengths as in case of Computer Graphics cited supra. Therefore, the process carried out by the appellants result in manufacture of a different excisable commodity and we hold that Membrane Disc filters are manufactured by the appellants and attract duty at the rate applicable to goods falling under CET sub-heading 8421.00. 5.The second point to be considered is the use of brand name 'Pall' and 'Ultipor' belonging to UK company. The assessees contend that there is no brand name on the goods; the brand names are found only on the pack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the product, filtering apparatus. The authorised use by the appellants of the two brand names does not mean brand names belong to the appellants. The UK company is the owner of the brand names and the UK company has not relinquished its title in the brand names to any other person. Therefore, the appellants have cleared goods affixed with the brand name of another person who is not eligible to the benefit of SSI exemption, rendering themselves ineligible to such benefit. 8.We also agree with the learned SDR that the extended period of limitation is available to the Department in this case since the assessees did not disclose that they were using the brand names of another person (UK Company) who was not eligible to the benefit of SS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
