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

2000 (10) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... they were clearing the parts with the brand name of Escorts and M/s. Bandhu Machinery Pvt. Ltd., therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification and duty was demanded by invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act on the ground that the appellants suppressed the facts for manufacturing the goods with the brand name of others. The adjudicating authority held that the appellants were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986 and confirmed the demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. E/271/94-B1, dated 13-5-1994 upheld the finding of the adjudicating authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f 'ESCORT' as well as 'BM' of the size of about 6" x 2" and size of the parts in question are in 2' and these markings were quite visible with the naked eyes. He submits as the parts in question manufactured by the appellants were lying scattered in the factory premises and were also placed in the office for demonstrations, sale and exhibition for the customers, the Revenue cannot now say that they were not aware of the fact that appellants ware clearing goods with the brand name of others. The Revenue officers visited the factory of the appellants on various occasions and they have seen the parts manufactured by the appellants with the marking of ESCORTS and B.M. Therefore, suppression cannot be alleged against the appellants. He submits t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n some of the Gate passes the fact of embossing was specifically referred. Hence, the Revenue was aware of the fact that appellants were clearing the goods with the embossing of 'BM' and 'ESCORT'. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 6.Learned Senior Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the issue in the present case is that whether the appellants suppressed the facts in respect of clearing the goods with the brand name of 'ESCORT' and 'BM' of another persons name M/s. Escorts Ltd. and M/s. Bandhu Machinery Pvt. Ltd. who were not entitled for the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986. He submits that the appellants never disclosed this fact to the Revenue. The appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and M/s. Bandhu Machinery Pvt. Ltd. who were not eligible under the Small Scale Exemption Notification. The contention of the appellants is that the Revenue was aware of the fact that they were clearing the goods with the brand name of others. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11A cannot be invoked. 10.The appellants filed classification list where they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. In the classification list, the appellants never disclosed the fact that they were clearing the goods with the brand name of others. In absence of this information the classification lists were approved as such. Therefore, the plea of the appellants is that the classification list approved, therefore, suppression canno .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T. 276 (S.C.) and Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) (Supra) where it is held that mere failure or negligence on the part of the manufacturer either not to take a licence or not to pay duty in case where there was scope of doubt does not attract extended limitation. In the case of Padmini Products (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no evidence that the manufacturer knew that the goods were liable to duty and he was required to take a licence hence the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In the present case the appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986 and as per Para-7 of the notification, the manufacturer is not e .....

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