TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal: SSI exemption granted for goods, duty not upheld. Department failed to prove clandestine removal. Penalties reduced.</h1> <h3>VI JOHN BEAUTY TECH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</h3> VI JOHN BEAUTY TECH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 148 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for SSI exemption.2. Allegation of clandestine removal of goods.Summary:1. Eligibility for SSI Exemption:The primary issue was whether the excisable goods manufactured by M/s. Vi John Beauty Tech (VJBT) and M/s. Vi John Beauty Products (VJBP) were eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption u/s Notification No. 140/83-C.E., dated 5-5-1983. The Revenue contended that the goods bore the brand name 'VI-JOHN,' which belonged to another person, making them ineligible for the exemption. The Appellants argued that the words 'VI-JOHN' were part of their company names and not brand names, emphasizing that their actual brand names (KOLBER, SEVEN FLOWER, and MARRY QUEEN) were prominently displayed. The Tribunal found that the excisable goods did not bear the brand name of another person, as the prominent brand names were different from 'VI-JOHN.' Consequently, the duty confirmed on this count against the Appellants was not upheld.2. Allegation of Clandestine Removal of Goods:Regarding the clandestine removal of goods, the charge was based on the statement of Haripal, a booking clerk, and the seizure of goods from various dealers and transport companies. The Appellants argued that there was no direct link between them and the seized goods, and the Department failed to prove that the goods were cleared without payment of duty. The Tribunal observed that the Department had not conclusively proved the clandestine removal of goods. However, the goods seized at the premises of Johnson Transport Co. were liable to confiscation due to the absence of duty-paying documents. The Tribunal upheld the redemption fine and the Central Excise duty payable on these goods. The penalties on VJBT and VJBP were reduced, and penalties on other Appellants were set aside.Conclusion:All appeals were disposed of in the terms mentioned above, with specific reductions in penalties and upholding certain confiscations and duties.
TaxTMI 