Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessees were entitled to small scale industries exemption when the goods were cleared under brand names found to belong to another concern, and whether the consequential duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties required interference.
Analysis: The brand names used on the cleared goods were found to belong to the proprietary concern of one of the appellants, while the clearances were made by the other connected concerns. The findings recorded were that the branded goods were manufactured and cleared during the relevant period under those brand names, that the activity was suppressed from the department with intent to evade excise duty, and that in some instances clearances were made without invoice or on bogus or duplicate invoices. In these circumstances, the condition in the SSI exemption notifications excluding goods bearing another person's brand name was attracted. The earlier decision relied upon by the assessees was held inapplicable because it proceeded on facts where there was no clandestine or surreptitious removal.
Conclusion: The exemption was rightly denied, and the confirmation of duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties called for no interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Where branded goods are cleared under a brand name belonging to another concern and the clearance is accompanied by suppression and clandestine removal, SSI exemption under the relevant notification is unavailable and the consequential duty and penalties are sustainable.