TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he finding that the brandname 'Kwality' used for marketing of 'cakes and pastries' manufactured by them did not belong to the assessee. 2. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, this demand of Rs. 79,982 for November 2012 to May 2013 with one of a continuing series of demand notices issued to them by the central excise authorities consequent upon original show cause notice dated 3rd May 2005 for the period from 2000-01 to 2002-03. It was further submitted that several of these demands came to be adjudicated for the period between 1st April 2000 and 31st December 2013 which ultimately culminated as 10 appeals before the Tribunal against orders either of original authority or of first appellate authority. According to Learned Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem suffices to deny the benefit of the said exemptions under the relevant notifications. Learned Authorised Representative submitted the decision of the Tribunal in Jamal Bakery v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II [2016 (339) ELT 604) (Tri.-Mumbai)] in which the denial of exemption for the period from 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 had been considered and it had been held by the Tribunal that '5. xxxxx 5.1 We find certain force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that they have not used the brand name or logo of anybody else and the brand name "Kwality" used by them on their products, in the manner and style, is their own brand name, which is different from the brand name/logo used by M/s. Pure Ice Cream Co. for thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment in Rukhmini Packkwell (supra) and there was no occasion for the Adjudicating Authority to examine other judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court cited above by the appellants and come to a proper conclusion. We find that the ratio of the judgment in M/s. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics (supra) goes to the root of the case and the present case also has to be looked into based on the said ratio, as the facts and circumstances are somewhat identical. We are of the considered view that the Adjudicating Authority has not looked into the issue of brand name in the perspective as discussed above. Therefore, the matter needs to go back to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration of the issue of brand name and availability of SSI exemption under rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es & Pastries was well within the knowledge of the Department when first SCN dated 3-5-2005. Therefore, the Dept. cannot allege suppression to invoke extended in subsequent SCN pertaining to Appeal No. E/1236/2009, which is supported by catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the appellants. We also note that there had been confusion with regard to brand name issue and consequential availability of SSI exemption in view of differing views expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court at different point of time and, therefore, the benefit of doubt should go to the Appellants. Therefore, we are of the view that it cannot be held that there was an attempt on the part of the Appellants to suppress any facts and they have acted on a bona fide be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law and there can be a possibility of differing interpretations of the same. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, holistically we are of the view that there was no wilful suppression of facts or mis-statement on the part of the appellants. Therefore, the penalties imposed on them are not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the same.' while directing that '5.5 With the above discussions, we set aside the demand covered under Appeals No. E/3158/2006 and No. E/1236/2009 beyond the normal period of one year, as time-barred. We also set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants in each of the appeals. We remand all matters to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision on the issue of brand name based on our obse....