TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al No E/483/07 against OIO No. 4/07 dated 30th March 07 by which a demand of Rs. 48,31,889/- has been confirmed besides equivalent penalty under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 25 of the CE Rules. 3. The party M/s. Alba Equipments has filed Stay Application No. E/St/524/07 in Appeal No E/806/07 against OIA No 18/07 dated 16-8-07 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the OIO passed by Assistant Commissioner confirming duty demand of Rs. 30,02,682/- and penalty of Rs. 29,99,089/- under Section 11AC and another penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 25 of CE Rules. 4. The third party i.e. M/s. Sunrise Services has filed stay applications No. E/St/ 267-269/07 in Appeal Nos. 421-423/07 against OIO Nos. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on several articles by various companies like manufacturers of pickles, coffee powder, paint brushes, solar water heaters, hose pipes etc. The appellants contention is that there cannot be allegation of suppression of facts after the date of search i.e. 19-11-04. Therefore, they contend that the show cause notice is delayed enormously 6. The allegation is that the symbol "Sunrise" which has been treated as trade mark has been owned by M/s. Sunrise Services and this symbol has been allowed to be used to by the other two parties namely M/s. Sunfab and M/s. Alba Equipments. However records clearly indicate that M/s. Sunrise Services Ltd. filed their application for registration of trade mark on 9-9-03. Therefore, prior to this date, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the liability in respect of M/s. Sunfab would be Rs. 8,00,000/-. He is willing to deposit, if time is given. While in the case of M/s. Alba the liability would be Rs. 6,00,000/- which he is willing to pre-deposit. He submits that Rule 25 of CE Rules is not applicable in the present case for imposition of penalties. 7. Shri K.S. Ramesh appearing for M/s. Sunrise Services pointed out that the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 is unjustified as they have not collided nor involved themselves in clearance of the goods without payment of duty. They have not allowed the other parties to use the name "SUNRISE" as they are not the owner of the symbol "SUNRISE" prior to the registration in their favour. He prayed for waiver of penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) wherein it has been clearly laid down that where the name of any other person has been affixed, then the benefit of notification is not available even in respect of unregistered trade mark. He submits that the use of trade mark by other manufacturers of other items of goods is not relevant for purposes of this case. He submits that there is no plea of financial hardship and hence they should pre-deposit the entire amounts. 9. We have carefully considered the submission. We notice that learned counsel has taken a very strong plea that after the date of search there cannot be any question of alleging of suppression. Therefore the plea taken that after the date of search the demands cannot be raised, prima....