2015 (3) TMI 1085

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dispute in this case is from 1997 - 98, to 2001  2002. During this period JSW cleared EWC seat covers bath tubs and mirrors by affixing the brand name Hindware of HSWIL by availing SSI exemption. HSWIL used these items for manufacture of their finished products. The Department was of the view that the EWC seat covers, bath tubs and mirrors cleared to HSWIL by affixing their brand-name 'Hindware' would not be eligible for SSI exemption. It is on this basis that show cause notice dated 05.07.2002 was issued to M/s. JSW for demand of duty of Rs. 28,09,185/- for the period from 1997-98 to 2001-02 by invoking extended period under proviso to section 11A(1). The SCN also demanded interest on this duty and proposed imposition of penalty on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ELT Tri. LB, that it is only sometime in 2005 that the Tribunals judgment in the case of Kohinoor Elastic P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore (supra) was reversed vide judgment reported in 2005 (188) ELT 3 (SC), that in view of this, longer limitation period under proviso to section 11A (1) would not be applicable in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Continental Foundation Joint venture vs. CCE reported in 2007 (216) ELT-177(SC) that duty demand during normal limitation period is less than 5.00 Lakhs while the appellant have already paid Rs. 5.00 Lakhs which stands appropriated by the Additional Commissioners order and hence, the amount already paid by the appellant is sufficient for the hearing of the appeal and, hence the requirement ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iod of dispute, in view of the Board's Circular and the various judgments of the Tribunal, the appellant had a bonafide belief that they would be eligible for SSI exemption, even if, they cleared the goods to M/s. Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd. after affixing HSWIL brand name 'Hindware' on the goods. In view of this, prima-facie the longer limitation period under proviso to section 11 A(1) would not be applicable. According to the appellant's Counsel, the duty demand for the normal limitation period is less than Rs. 5.00 Lakhs, and this fact is not disputed by the ld. DR. In view of this, we hold that the amount of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs already paid by the appellant is sufficient for hearing of the appeal, and the requirement of pre-d....