2017 (10) TMI 658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal"), by which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the facts in Central Excise Appeal No. 271 of 2016. 2. The Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely pharmaceutical machinery falling under Chapter 84 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. The Respondent is availing benefit under Notification No. 8/2002 dated 1 March 2002 (as amended), without availing facility of cenvat credit scheme under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The officers of the Central Excise, Mumbai IV visited the premises of the Respondent and upon search of the premises and scrutiny of the records, it was found that the Respondent is engaged in the manufacture....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is Notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person". The Show Cause Notice therefore, called upon the Respondent to show cause why the duty amounting to Rs. 32,58,325/should not be demanded from the Respondent for the period form 12 August 2002 to 31 June 2004 and the SSI explanation should not be denied to the Respondent. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the Respondent had suppressed the fact of using the brand name unregistered of another manufacturer from the Department, with an intention to evade duty. The Adjudicating Authority invoked the previsions of the first proviso of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and confirmed the demand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent had availed of, was subject to certain conditions and which included that the exemption in the Notification will not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or tradename, whether registered or not, of another person. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the exemption in the Notification could not be availed of by the Respondent as they had used the brand name of another person viz. SAMS Machine Private Limited. He has also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has incorrectly placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court, which was not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the facts of the present case. The Respondents are not using the branded name of another person and the name used on the label affixed on the machines was that of the Respondents themselves. 10. The decision of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, HyderabadIV Vs. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics 2015(318) ELT 585 (SC) and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II Vs. Pethe Brake Motors (P) Ltd. 2015 (319) ELT 575 (SC) are referred to in the impugned order are clearly applicable in the present case. 11. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II (Supra), the Apex Court held thus : " This is not in dispute that the respondent is an SSI unit. However, it was denied exemption from Excise duty admis....