TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 1997-98 and 1998-99 has been confirmed by the lower authorities after following the procedure of issue of show cause notice, adjudication and appellate proceedings against the appellant No. 1 along with interest as applicable. Penalty equal to duty has also been imposed on the appellant No. 1. Penalties of Rs. Two lakhs on appellant No. 2 and Rs. 50,000/- on appellant No. 3 have also been imposed. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that appellant was using the brand name "Sudhir Gensets" which was also used by another unit as "Sudhir Engineering Company". 2. Learned advocate submitted that the case of the department has been made on the basis of declaration filed under Rule 173B to the department wherein they had declared the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearly applicable to their case. Further, he also submits that if his submissions on merits are not accepted, the issue may be remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) since Commissioner (Appeals) failed to record in his findings of their submissions with regard to issue of applicability of extended period. He also submits that in view of the fact that full penalty has been imposed under Section 11AC equal to duty, no penalty should have been imposed on the Managing Director and General Manager and lenient view is called for. 3. On the other hand, learned DR submits that it is not correct to say that the case is made out by the department on the basis of statutory records. He submits that declaration has been filed under Rule 173B and the assum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to interfere with the penalty imposed on first appellant. On this fact the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand as well as penalties by upholding suppression of facts and mis-declaration also. Therefore, he submits that appeals deserve to be rejected. Further, he also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Galaxy Sanitary Wares (P) Limited - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 162 (Tri. - Mum.) wherein the Tribunal dealt with the case which is similar to the first appellant's case. In that case also the brand name was being used by another unit for earlier period and subsequently the appellant also started using the same brand name and Tribunal held that appellant in that case was not eligible for SSI benefits. 4. We have con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." already available in the market. Therefore, we do not find that appellants can derive any support from this decision. Further, even when the Superintendent wrote a letter to appellant, the appellant gave reply stating that brand name is owned by them, which was contrary to the facts. Appellants' submission is that the Range Office was common for Sudhir Engineering Company and Sudhir Gensets, the declarations were filed with the same office and therefore, the department had the statutory declarations, filed by both the units and therefore suppression of facts cannot be invoked. We are unable to agree with this view. According to proviso to Section 11A, the department is required to show suppression of facts or mis-declaration. If there is ....