CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
V.P. Gulati, T.P. Nambiar, JJ.
Harts Cocoa Products (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras -Respondent
Order No. 976/96 Appeal No. E/232/93/MAS, 976 of 1996, E/232 of 1993
Decided On : 27-06-1996
Per Shri V.P. Gulati :
The issue in the appeal relates to the demand of duty in respect of goods held to have been manufactured by the appellants with the Brand name of another. The appellants had availed of the benefit of Notification 175/86 in respect of these and had held out that the brand name owner was eligible to the benefit of Notification 175/86 and had produced a Provisional certificate of registration as an SSI Unit in the name of the brand name owner. The fact in brief as set out in the Ld. lower authority's order and which are not in dispute are set out below:
"On 13.1.92 the Central Excise Officers of Madras VII Division, Preventive Unit, visited the said factory for verification of the records. During the course of verification, they found that the factory besides manufacturing confectionery with their own brand name `Harts', also manufactured and supplied to M/s. Mikie Orient Confectioneries, Madras-8, confectioneries with their brand name `Mikie'. They also manufactured supplied confectionery to M/s. National Products, Bangalore, with their brand name `NP'.
In respect of the products manufactured and supplied under their own brand name, they availed exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dt. 1.3.86 as amended and in respect of the products with brand name 'NP' they did not avail the concession and cleared the said goods at full rate of duty. In respect of the products with brand name 'NP', they did not avail the concession and cleared the said goods at the full rate of duty. In respect of the products manufactured and supplied to M/s. Mikie Orient Confectioneries with brand name 'Mikie', they have availed exemption under Notification 175/86 as amended and cleared the goods to them under concessional rate of duty for the period from August 1990 to January, 1991.
On investigation it was found that M/s. Mikie Orient Confectioneries, were not engaged in the manufacture of any product and not having a factory but were only trading in confectionary goods and therefore they did not come under the purview of exemption prescribed under Notification No. 175/86-CE dt. 1.3.86 as amended.
Shri P. Velayutharajan, Director of M/s. Harts Cocoa Products P. Ltd., gave a statement dt. 13.1.92 stating that the brand name company, Viz., M/s. Mikie Orient Confectionery did not have any factory or machinery for the manufacture of the said product. However, they have registered themselves as an SSI Unit and their SSI certificate bearing No. 18/7/21369 expired on 11.6.91.
Shri S. Subramanian, Power of Attorney holder and Shri D. Jayakumar, Assistant Manager (Finance) of M/s. Mikie Orient Confectioneries, in their statement dt. 7.2.92 and 14.1.92 respectively have confirmed the fact that they do not own any factory for the manufacture of they said product and their company was started at No. 150, Montieth Road, Madras-8, and subsequently functioning at 74, Pantheon Road, both the premises were used as Office premises only."
2. The duty has been demanded in respect of the clearance of goods with the Brand Name 'Mikie' and longer period of limitation has been invoked in terms of rule 11 (A) proviso for reason of a suppression of fact.
The Ld. Advocate has urged the following pleas:
1) The demand is time barred-extended period of limitation not being invokable.
2) Brand name owner need not be a manufacturer.
3) Brand name was not affixed to the product.
4) In the alternative if brand name owner is not a manufacturer, the mischief contained in para 7 of the notification 175/86 will not be applicable.
3. It has been urged that since the Brand name owner was only a trader and not a manufacturer the mischief of para 7 of notification 175/86 under which the branded goods manufactured with the brand name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of small scale exemption would not be attracted.
4. It has been urged that a provisional SSI Certificate issued in the name of M/s. Mikie Orient Confectioneries was produced and the appellants were
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.