2015 (4) TMI 75

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 Revenue') questioning the validity of judgment and final order dated 18.2.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, (hereinafter referred as 'the CEGAT'). By the judgment the CEGAT has allowed the appeal of the respondent herein and set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner Excise levying the excise duty in the sum of Rs. 34,67,164/-. Penalty of an identical amount is also imposed under the provisions of Sec. 11A (C) of the Central Excise Act. Penalty of Rs. 8.50 lakhs was imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with further penalty of Rs. 3.50 lakhs on the partner of the respondent-firm. Consequently, these penalties have also been set aside. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue invoking the provisions of para 4 above on the ground that the respondent is using the brand name of M/s. TISCO Ltd. i.e. TISCOG and therefore comes within the mischief of para 4. The relevant facts which are to be taken note of for this purpose are that M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (TISCO) has given authorization to the respondent vide the letter dated 9.1.2001 to manufacture TISCOG. This letter not only gives authorization to the respondent to manufacture the goods i.e. Steel Cog Stool as per the TISCO patent design but also gives right to the respondent to market the said goods. Armed with the aforesaid authorization the respondent has been receiving orders from various parties to manufacture and supply it to them the Stee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a 4 in Notification No.1/93 dated 28.2.1993 where the words mentioned are "the exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person." This para 4 was amended vide Notification No. 59/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 and the word "affixes" was substituted by the word "bearing". The reason for this substitution is explained in para (iii) of para J of the changes 1994-95 dealt with "changes in the SSI scheme",.This is so stated in para 10 of the said judgment which we reproduce below for the sake of clarification: 10. Part (iii) of Para J of the Budget Changes-1994-95 dealt with "Changes in the SSI schemes" explains the purpose of the amendment in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was not necessary that there has to be affixation of the name or mark on the goods. Applying the ratio of this case to the facts of the present case, the irresistible conclusion is to hold that the impugned order of the CEGAT is untenable and not in accordance with law. We may mention that while giving its decision the CEGAT has gone by the unamended para 4 without taking into consideration the amended para and the implication thereof. At this stage we would like to deal with another contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that even if the demand of duty is to be upheld, it is not a case where the Revenue Authorities could have imposed penalty under the provisions of Sec.11A(C) of the Act. For this purpose he ....