TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cture of 'Rider' brand rubber auto parts, i.e., engine mountings, radiator mountings, bonnet clips, rubber cabin mountings, gear protection cap, etc. falling under Sub-Heading No.87.08 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. M/s. A.V. Auto Industries, (though not an appellant), proprietary concern of Shri Vijay Kumar Arora was manufacturing 'Rider' brand rubber auto parts similar to the parts being manufactured by M/s. Jaswant Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. The said parts were being manufactured by M/s. AV Auto Industries on job work basis of/ for M/s. Jaswant Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. The duty on the goods manufactured by M/s.A.V. Auto stands demanded from and confirmed against M/s. Jaswant Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. M/s. Jaswant Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. (Directors Shri Vijay Arora, Shri Vinod Arora, Shri Virendra Arora and Shri Manoj Arora) were engaged in the manufacture of 'Rider' brand rubber auto parts such as engine mountings, oils seals, rubber hoses used in various automobiles, radiator mounting, bonnet clips, rubber cabin mounting, gear protection cap falling under Chapter Heading No.87.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. M/s. Rider Industries....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present appeals is as regards denial of Small Scale Exemption availed by various units. The Commissioner has confirmed the duty by denying them the benefit of the exemption, by invoking the longer period of limitation and has also imposed penalties on the said count. 5. Further, based upon the incriminating documents recovered from various premises, the statements of various persons were recorded and stock taking of goods was undertaken. It was found that the stock of various goods lying at different premises of different manufacturers did not tally with the stocks reflected in the statutory records. M/s. A.V. Auto Industries was not maintaining any records to manufacture the goods on job work basis for M/s. Jaswant Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. Statement of various dealers of the appellants were also recorded, wherein they deposed that sometimes, they were getting the goods against cash payments and without the cover of any invoices. 6. The officers also scrutinised the records of the trading firm M/s. Rider (Sales) India and found that the quantum of various motor vehicle parts manufactured by all the three units and sold by the said trading concern were much more than the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs to another person. The said dispute travelled upto the Tribunal and vide its Final Order No.316/04-NB/SM, dated 20.02.2004, Tribunal extended the benefit of Small Scale Industries Exemption Notification to the said appellants. The Tribunal order stands accepted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, who vide their order dated 13.09.2007 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. As such, it is seen that the issue of use of brands by various manufacturing units was well within the knowledge of the Revenue and their stand that the brand name used was not entitled to exemption was not accepted by the Tribunal as also by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In such a scenario, invocation of longer period of limitation is not justified. Otherwise also, we find that during the relevant period, there were decisions of the Tribunal holding that if the brand is being used with a little variance and in respect of different types of goods, the Small Scale Industries Exemption would still be available. The said law was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Trichy Vs. Rukmeni Pakkwell Traders [2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC)] as also in the case of CCE, Chandigarh-I Vs. Mahaan D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (P) Ltd., which demand stands set aside by the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, we find that no wilful suppression can be attributed to the appellants. The Commissioner has not held the demand to be barred by limitation by observing that the relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products [1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC)] cannot be applied to the facts of the present case in as much as in that case, there was a trade notice issued by the Revenue, whereas in the present case, no trade notice was issued. As such he held that there is no question of bona fide belief. We do not agree with the above reasoning of the adjudicating authority. Having already observed that one of the appellants was issued Show Cause Notice by the Revenue itself on the same ground and as such the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue as also the fact that during the relevant period, there were decisions in favour of the assessee, we hold the demand raised on the said ground to be barred by limitation. The same is accordingly set aside along with setting aside of penalties imposed upon various appellants on the said count. 11. As regards confirmation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its with the records of M/s. Riders Sales, the Ld. Advocate submits that the person from whom the records were resumed on the basis of which allegations were made against the manufacturing units were never issued a Show Cause Notice, neither was he offered for cross-examination. As such, he submits that the entire findings of clandestine removal are based upon surmises and conjectures and cannot be upheld. 12. Countering the arguments, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue draws our attention to the findings by the adjudicating authority and submits that the printouts were taken from the seized floppies on various dates in the presence of the representatives of various units and the scrutiny of the said printouts revealed that the appellants have cleared huge quantity of goods from their factory without payment of duty. The said evidences read with the statements of various persons including the statements of the dealers lead to inevitable conclusion that the appellants were indulging in clandestine activities. Ld. Departmental Representative specifically drew our attention to the statement of Shri Vinod Arora, proprietor of M/s. Jaswant Rubber Industries (P) L....