TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....300, 840690, 841290 and 843100 of the Central Excise Tariff. The forgings are manufactured as per the designs supplied by the customers who are M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., M/s. Kirloskar and M/s. Diesel Components Works. The period of dispute in this case from March 2003 to December 2003. The appellant after manufacturing the forgings as per the drawings and designs supplied by the customers, were sending the same under job work challans to another manufacture M/s. K.P. Manufacturers for proof machining and M/s. K.P. Manufacturers after completing the machining were returning the forgings back to the appellant, who were sending the same to their respective customers. M/s. K.P. Manufacturers, however, while returning the machined for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h interest thereon and also for imposition of penalty on them under Section 11AC. In the show cause notice, the department also alleged that the appellant have suppressed the relevant facts and mislead the department with intent to evade the payment of duty. 1.2 The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 26-8-2004 by which the Joint Commissioner held that the letters KPM embossed on the forgings is not a brand name and that the value of the goods cleared bearing the letters KPM should have been included in the aggregate value of the clearances during the financial year and on this basis there is short-payment of duty. He, accordingly confirmed the duty demand as made in the show cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs manufactured by the appellant represent a brand name belonging to M/s. K.P. Manufacturers who were doing the proof machining on the forgings, that this brand name was being put by M/s. K.P. Manufacturers on their insistence as is clear from their letter dated 13-2-1996 to the appellant wherein they had informed the appellant that it is essential for them to put their brand name KPM so as to register with the trade and merchandise marks authorities later on, that because of this only, the appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s. K.P. Manufacturers for use of their brand name for an annual payment of Rs. 6,000/-, that M/s. K.P. Manufacturers had insisted on putting their brand name on the forgings as they wanted to popularise the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that there was no suppression of any fact on the part of the appellant is incorrect, as the appellant had never told the department that the letter 'KPM' do not represent a brand name and that in view of this, while the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order holding that the letters KPM affixed on the goods are not a brand name and upholding the duty demand on merits is correct, the part of the order confining the duty demand only to normal limitation period and setting aside the order of penalty on the appellant under Section 11AC is not correct. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The point of dispute in these appeals is as to whether the letters 'KPM' affixed on the goods manufacture....