9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-transferable right and licence to use the trade name of the foreign company. They were using the brand name "SPM Instrument". The appellants were availing the benefit of Notfn. 175/86-C.E., dtd. 1-3-86 available for the small-scale units and were either availing exemption for the initial clearances or paying duty at the appropriate rates. 2. A show cause notice was issued on 8-11-93 proposing to demand duty and impose penalty for the period and on the grounds as : - (i) Amount of duty on account of use of foreign brand name Rs. 9,11,201.35 Period of dispute 6-4-1992 to 22-10-1992 (ii) On account of alleged under - valuation Rs. 94,167.77 Period of dispute 21-9-92 to 16-2-93 (iii) On account of alleged clandes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Page 118 of the Paper book. The fact that the appellants are using the brand name is evident from the letter dt. 16-3-92 given to the Department. (ii) The only ground for the Commissioner to invoke the longer period of limitation is, the appellants had not mentioned the same in the classification list. On this aspect, the Tribunal in the case of Intercity Cable System Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 445, had held, Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not require the disclosure regarding a brand name and this view has been followed in the case of Queen Electrical Industries v. CCE, Madurai reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 284 (Tri.) = 2002 (51) RLT 62. The perusal of the Classification List effective from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly conceded that the Tribunal in the case of Paras Prints Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 662] had held : - "charge of suppression, etc., must be proved on all counts individually for invoking the extended period" Therefore, we proceed to examine the demands made on other counts and S. Nos. (ii) and (iii) in Para 2 (supra). (d) The Department demands differential duty on the basis of comparable basis on 7 numbers of Demonstration Kits cleared by adopting Rs. 20,000/- as assessable value. The appellants submit that the items in question have not been sold and therefore the question of adopting the sale value of identical items does not arise and cannot be upheld, since Section 4(b) of the Central Excise Act as it existed then alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
