TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them during the period 1995-96 to June 2000. The respondents had also cleared scrap of aluminum, steel and copper without declaring the same in the classification list and without following other Central Excise formalities including payment of duty. A quantity of metal scrap was seized on 29-4-2000 and a quantity of bus ducts seized on 17-6-2000. Three trucks were also seized on 17-6-2000 as they were found laden with bus ducts found to have been cleared without payment of appropriate central excise duty due on them. Adjudicating a Show Cause Notice issued in this connection, the original authority found that the respondents had been clearing bus ducts bearing the brandname 'STARDRIVE' belonging to sister concern of the respondents M/s. Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He also vacated the penalty imposed on Shri K.L. Thadani, MD of the respondent-company under Rule 209A of the CER. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the demand of duty on bus ducts, applicable interest, confiscation of bus ducts and three trucks, and the penalty imposed on the respondents and Shri K.L. Thadani. It is submitted that the brandname 'STARDRIVE' belonged to SDEL, a sister concern of the respondents, SDBL. SDEL manufactured electrical control apparatus, instruments, electrical conducts and switch boards. The brandname 'STARDRIVE' was registered by SDEL on 22-1-1975; SDBL was set up only in the year 1986. The SSI exemption was not admissible if the assessee used on its goods a brand name belonging to another person in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an assessee used a brandname belonging to another person was clarified only in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Fine Industries - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 53 (Tri.-LB.). Vide Circular No. 52/52/94-CX., dated 1-9-1994 the CBEC had clarified that if a brandname was not owned by any particular person, the use thereof would not deprive a unit of the benefit of small scale exemption scheme. This clarification applied to the goods specified in Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The brandname 'STARDRIVE' was registered by SDEL for various products but not for use on bus ducts. In the circumstances longer period of limitation could not have been validly invoked by the original authority to confirm the demand of duty against them on the bus ducts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the classification list filed with the Department for the clearance of the impugned goods that they did not use a brand name belonging to any other person on the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by it. Shri K.L. Thadani, MD of the respondent-company was also a Director of SDEL and was obviously aware of the mis-declaration and the evasion of excise duty involved on clearances of bus ducts by the respondents. In the circumstances we find that invocation of longer period to confirm the demand by the original authority was legally proper. The demand of interest on the duty due, confiscation of the three trucks, fine ordered as well as the orders of penalty under Section 11AC on SDBL and the penalty ordered under Rule 209A on Shri K.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) dealt with the implication of use of the same brand name on two different products by different manufacturers. We find that the clarification and the ratio does not apply to the facts of the subject case. 6. The respondent's argument that they were under the bona fide belief that they could legally avail SSI exemption till the confusion was cleared by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Fine Industries (supra) is also not acceptable for the reason that the said decision dealt with the implication of a manufacturer using a brand name similar to the brand name belonging to another person and the admissibility of SSI exemption when an assessee used brand name of another person manufacturin....