TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacturer of Soya Bari/Soya Nuggets. The dispute covers the period March, 2003 to June 2007, during which the assessee was found to have manufactured the Soya products and cleared the same bearing the brand name "Gulab". 2. During the course of investigation, the Department noticed that the assessee was manufacturing the Soya Products with the above brand name, but did not obtain registration from the Central Excise Authorities and did not pay the Central Excise Duty payable on such goods. The investigation further revealed that the brand name "Gulab" was registered in the name of M/s. Vinita Soya Products, a partnership firm in which Shri S. B. Sharma as well as Shri P. K. Sharma were partners. The Department concluded that for the per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was under a bonafide belief that the 'Soya Bari' manufactured in their factory was not liable for payment of duty. The item Soya Bari did not find specific mention in the Central Excise Tariff under chapter 21 at the time when Commercial production was commenced in their factory (2003). They became aware of their duty liability only with the issue of Notification No. 03/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006 in which at serial No. 28 the Item 'Soya Bari' was mentioned with an effective rate of duty @ of 8%. After issue of the Notification, they approached the Central Excise Authorities for clarification and the Superintendent of Central Excise, Byrnihat of Shilong Commissionerate clarified vide letter dt. 13/09/2006 that they were not required to obtai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion conducted by the department has established that the brand name was owned by M/s. Vinita Soya Products which is a partnership firm. The appellant-assessee has the legal status of a Private Limited company and as such enjoys a distinct legal status from that of the partnership firm, even though the directors in the Private Limited Company are partners in the partnership firm. He further added that even if the brand name is used by the appellant with the NOC from the owner of the brand name, it cannot be considered as use of brand name belonging to the appellant. As such, he supported the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of SSI Notification on account of the use of the brand na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....These are in the nature of textured protein substance made out of De-oiled soya cakes. In the light of Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 21 (upto 28/02/2005) and Note no. 5 of Chapter 21 (from 1/03/2005), there is no serious dispute about the liability for Central Excise Duty on the products manufactured by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority has recorded detailed findings that the goods manufactured were cleared bearing the brand name "Gulab". It is also not in dispute that this brand name was owned by M/s. Vinita Soya Products, a partnership firm in which the directors of the appellant-assessee were the partners. M/s. Vinita Soya Products have issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the appellant for use of such brand name. Inspite of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication No. 3/2006 dated 01/03/2006. In this connection, we observe that the Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 21 (upto 28/2/2005) as well as chapter note 5 for the subsequent period make it clear that textured protein substances would be classifiable under 2108 of the tariff (upto 28/02/2005) and 2106 for the subsequent period. Accordingly, we are unable to accept the plea of the appellant that they were under the bonafinde belief that the goods manufactured by them would not come under levy of Excise Duty. From record, it is seen that the appellant, who started manufacture of the products similar in 2003, did not approach the department with intimation of the same and did not take registration with the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. O....