2010 (2) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heading 8483.00, 7308.00 and 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute in this case pertains to year 1994. The respondent were availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86, as amended, and had filed price lists No. 480-481/87 dated 4-4-86 and 207/87, dated 22-6-87, both of which had been provisionally approved by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 3-8-89. Para 7 of the exemption Notification No. 176/86-C.E. provided that the exemption in this notification was not applicable to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the exemption under this notification. The No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent would not be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. A show cause notice was issued to the Respondent on 3-2-93 proposing denial of the SSI benefit and duty demand of allegedly short paid duty of Rs. 19,00,917/- for the period from 1-1-88 to 31-3-92 and also imposition of penalty. The show cause notice dated 3-2-93 was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 27-4-94 by which he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 18,64,918/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the Respondent and another penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- on PCTL. However, on appeal to the Tribunal by the Respondent as well as by PCTL, the Tribunal vide order No. 1833-1835/2000-B dated 23-10-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 815 (T.)] allowed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... name of another person for the period from 1-3-93 onward and, therefore, the finalisation of the price list relating to that period is not correct. 1.5 The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 1-CE/GZB/05 dated 3/1/05 dismissed the Department's appeal on the ground that the objection raised in the Department's appeal that due to substitution of the words "bearing the brand name" in place of "affixing the brand name" in the Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93, duty was payable on the clearances of goods bearing the brand name of another manufacturer cleared after 1-3-93 onward has no force. It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upon the Tribunal's order and that in view of this, there is no merit in the Department's appeal. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The Respondent manufactured various goods for PCTL on which the brand name of PCTL is affixed. However, the affixing the brand name is not done by the Respondent. During the period prior to 1-3-94 as per the provisions of para 4 of the exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93, the SSI benefit in respect of branded goods could be denied, if the brand name of another person, not eligible for the SSI exemption, is affixed by the manufacturer of the goods. However, by amending Notification No. 59/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94, the Notification No. 1/9....