2001 (5) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture LPG stoves under their own brand names 'Snap' and 'Trendy'; that along side these brand names, they were also mentioning 'A SKN Product'; that since their goods were bearing their own brand names, they were availing the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., that however the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, under Adjudication Order No. 83/97, dated 26-11-1997 confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,37,819/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for the period from 1994-95 to 1996-97, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs and confiscated the goods worth Rs. 4,51,200/- seized from their premises with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions : (i)      Palsons Drugs & Chemical Industries v. C.C.E. - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 665 (ii)     Om Enterprises v. C.C.E., Pune - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 127 (iii)    Chemguard Coatings Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chennai, 2000 (116) E.L.T. 43 (iv)    Emkay Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 741 (v)     Dharni Cement Ltd. v. C.C.E., Trichy - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 840. 4. Finally the ld. Advocate mentioned that extended period of limitation under Proviso to Section 11A(1) is not invokable as the Appellants did not commit any fraud, mis-statement or suppression of facts; they had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ible manufacturer but if he joins, or identifies himself with, the ineligible manufacturer, his goods become one with the goods of such ineligible manufacturer. They become indistinguishable. In the market, they will be understood as one and the same goods. They no longer, need the benefit under the Notification". 6. The ld. DR, also distinguished the cases, relied upon by the ld. Advocate. For example he mentioned that in Chemguard Coating case, name of the foreign company was mentioned which had supplied the technology and had licensed the Appellant therein to manufacture the goods in accordance with the Technology; that in Om Enterprises case, a metal plate was affixed which contained the information i.e. the name of the Company ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... As the brand name 'SKN' appears along with other words on the product of the Appellants irrespective of the fact that the letters used are smaller than those used in mentioning their own brand name, the mischief of Paragraph 4 is attracted and the Appellants will not be eligible for the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The use of these words "A SKN PRODUCT" clearly indicate a connection in the course of trade between the impugned goods and M/s. SKN Gas Appliances Ltd. As rightly pointed out by ld. D.R., the Appellate Authority had mentioned that these words were to indicate a reference relating to the group. The Supreme Court in Paliwal Electricals case gave the reason d'etre for not extending the benefit o....