TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the goods cleared under the brand name of another person, who was not eligible for small scale exemption, were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; (ii) whether the penalty and duty demand required interference.
Issue (i): Whether the goods cleared under the brand name of another person, who was not eligible for small scale exemption, were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 223/87-C.E., did not apply where a manufacturer affixed the specified goods with the brand name or trade name of another person not eligible for the exemption. The branded HIP moulds were supplied with the brand name of a concern whose clearances had exceeded the prescribed limit and which was also availing Modvat credit. The earlier decisions relied upon were found distinguishable on facts and did not override the clear statutory bar in para 7 of the notification.
Conclusion: The goods were not eligible for the small scale exemption, and the duty demand was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalty and duty demand required interference.
Analysis: The use of another person's brand name was found to be conscious and knowing. The demand of duty was sustained in full, but the penalty was considered excessive and was reduced.
Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 7,500, and the demand otherwise stood confirmed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the main exemption issue, with only partial relief granted by reduction of penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: Small scale exemption is unavailable where specified goods bear the brand name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption, and conscious use of such brand name justifies confirmation of duty liability with appropriate penalty.
TaxTMI 
