Per P.S. Bajaj:

This order will dispose of six appeals filed by the appellants against the common order in appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.7.2000 vide which he had affirmed the common order in original of the Additional Commissioner dated 18.2.99 who confirmed the duty demands and imposed penalties of various amounts as indicated in his order in original.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals may briefly be stated as under:

3. Appellant (1) to (5) were engaged in the manufacture of auto parts falling under Chapter 87 of the schedule to CETA. They were manufacturing the specified goods bearing brand name "SI" which belonged to appellant No. (1) and marketing the same through appellant No. (6). They were all availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 1 /93-CE dated 28.2.93. During the course of checking their factory premises by the officers of the Central Excise, it was found that the SSI Exemption to appellants No. (2) to (5) was hit by clause (4) of Notification No. 1/93-CE and the branded goods were wrongly cleared without payment of duty and as such were liable to be confiscated under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules. From the factory premises of appellant No. (3) and (5) branded goods (auto parts) bearing "SI" trade mark valued at Rs. 94745/- and Rs. 7290/- respectively were seized on the reasonable belief that they were liable to be confiscated under Rule 173-Q of the Rules. Similarly, branded goods with brand name "SI" valued at Rs. 22576/- were detained at the factory premises of appellant No.(2). However, no manufactured goods were found in the factory premises of appellant No. (1) and (4). On search of premises of appellant No. (6) through whom the other appellants were marketing, the goods valued at Rs. 46,92,917/- were detained. The Statements of the partners of appellant No. (1), supervisor of appellant No. (4) and partners of appellant No.(6) were also recorded. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 10.6.97 was issued to all the appellants for the confiscation of the branded goods under Rule 173-Q of the Rules and also for confirmation of the duty amounts as indicated therein and imposition of penalties. On appellant No. (6), penalty under Rule 209-A of the Rules was proposed to be imposed, in that show cause notice.

4. Appellants contested the correctness of that show cause notice. They in their reply alleged that appellants No. (1) to (5) were manufacturing not common but different goods and they all were separate legal entities. The brand name "SI" was being used by them under mutual settlement/memorandum arrived at between them. They further averred that packing of goods with brand name at traders premises did not attract mischief of para 4 of the exemption notification. Appellant No. (6) also denied his liability for imposition of penalty under Rule 209-A of the Rules.

5. The Additional Commissioner, however, did not agree with the version of the appel lants and confirmed the duty demands and imposed penalties of various amounts on appellant No. (1) and (5) besides ordering the confiscation of the seized goods. He also imposed penalty under Rule 209-A of the Rules on appellant No. (6). This order of the Additional Commissioner was affirmed in appeal through the common impugned order in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

6. Appellants have filed the present appeals being dissatisfied with the impugned order in appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals).

7. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record.

8. Admittedly, appellant No. (1) was the owner of the brand name "SI" as per the allegations in the show cause notice who surrendered the Central Excise licence on 18.2.94 as their clearances were below the SSI limit of Rs. 30 lakhs. These facts are also evident from the order in original of the Additional Commissioner. That being so, neither the branded goods with brand name "SI" lying in the factory premises of the firm of appellant No. (1) nor sold by it to the tr