TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al No. E/1277/2010 is filed by the assessee whereas, E/1278/2010 is filed by Shri M.V. Sekhar Rao, Managing Director of the assessee and appeal No. E/1279/2010 is filed by Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi, MD of SPM Polymers (P) Ltd., regarding the personnel penalties imposed on them. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue in brief, after filtering out unnecessary details, is that the appellant assessee is a manufacturer of plastic moulded furniture and household articles like buckets and mugs. They were availing the benefit of SSI exemption vide Notification No. 09/2003- CE at the relevant time. They were also manufacturing goods as job worker associated from M/s VSN Plastic Pvt. Ltd., and others. The officers of DGCEI investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules r/with Section 11AB of the Act. vii) Redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. viii) Penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act on the duties demanded, Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. ix) Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on Smt. Manne Vijayalakshmi MD, and Sri. M.V. Sekhar Rao, her husband, for contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. On an appeal, the First Appellate Authority has set aside the demands except the demand of Rs. 5,08,745/- (Annexure D-4 to the show cause notice) on account of differential ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he duty was calculated denying SSI benefit on all clearances. Hence the demand on this count needs to be recalculated and it works out to only an amount of Rs. 3,39,780/- on goods valued at Rs. 53,09,065/-. c) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand on allegations of irregular avaliment of CENVAT credit but had erroneously confirmed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the same ground. In view of the above, they prayed that the impugned order to the extent of confirming the demand of Rs. 5,08,745/- along with interest and imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 13 of CCR, 2004 may be set aside. 6. The appellants Shri M.V. Sekhar Rao Smt. Vijay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with brand name owned by VSN. Therefore, it is not clear from show cause notice itself, whether the brand name Vandana is owned by the appellant himself in which case no differential duty arises or the brand name is owned by somebody else, in which case, the differential duty is payable. It is also the submission of the appellant that in respect of mint stools manufactured by them the goods did not carry brand name NAMASKAR as alleged by the Department in the show cause notice. These factual aspects need to be verified by the Original Authority to determine which of the clearances indicated in annexure D-4 to the show cause notice had the brand name of another person and recompute the differential duty accordingly. Consequently, the ....