2003 (1) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Appellant. Shri A. Shukla, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 20,01,301/- and penalties of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 17,39,469/- imposed upon the applicant company and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed upon its Director, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of CCE, Chandigarh v. Fine Industries & Ors. - [2002 (146) E.L.T. 53 (T - LB) = 2002 (53) RLT 398] the benefit of the notification can be denied only when identical specified goods are cleared under the brand name of another person and in the present case the goods cleared by the applicants are not identical to the goods manufactured by M/s. Manik Machinery and therefore the benefit is availabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was no disclosure to the department that the brand name 'Pilot' in respect spray guns was owned by another person, namely, M/s. Manik Machinery, which disclosure was vital for the purpose of determining the whether the benefit of SSI notification was to be extended to the applicants. He therefore submits that the demand has been rightly raised invoking the extended period. 4. On a carefu....