9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against M/s. Paragon Fragrances and has reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. 2. Shri V.R. Sethi, learned Advocate at the outset, submitted that the Additional Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 43/03, dated 28-11-2003, has confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,450/- against M/s. Paragon Fragrances and has imposed a penalty of equivalent amount on them as they had manufactured and cleared room fresheners bearing the brand name 'ESTELLA' which was the brand name used by M/s. Wonderax Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd.; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty against the said Company and reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/-; that in the Memorandum of Appeal, filed against M/s. Paragon Fragrances, no praye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atories (India) Pvt. Ltd; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Fine Industries, [2002 (146) E.L.T. 53 (Tri.-LB)], wherein it has been held that both the assessee and the brand name owner, should manufacture the identical goods and that in the present matter, the brand name owner was using the brand name for a product different from shaving cream. 5. The learned SDR, further submitted that the contention that the brand name "WONDERAX" had been assigned to the respondents by the brand name owner, is nothing but an after thought, since Shri Manohar Singh Kapoor, partner of M/s. Wonderax Laboratories, in his statement dated 3-12-1999, has deposed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong; that even the Appellate Tribunal has passed different decisions in this regard. He relied upon the decision in the case of Raj Serpant Engg. Factory v. C.C.E., [1996 (85) E.L.T. 78] and contended that the mere fact that the issue had been referred to the Larger Bench, which had settled the matter in the case of M/s. Fine Industries (supra), goes to show that there were conflicting decisions on the subject; that in view of the conflicting decisions, the respondents were, under the bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay Central Excise duty even if they were affixing the brand name of another person. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The appeal Nos. E/3195-96/2004-NB(C) can be disposed of without going i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
