TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed penalty of Rs. 45,38,210/- under section 11AC of the Act and Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 Rules on the assessee. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 45,38,210/- on Shri Jain under Rule 26 of the Rules. 2. The facts which led to the issue of the OIO are that the assessee was a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals but it was not registered with the Central Excise department as it was availing the benefit of exemption available to small scale industries under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. Acting on intelligence, central excise officers searched the premises of one, M/s. Pharmasia, Indore and the residence of its Director, Shri Jain. Pharmasia was the C&F agent of M/s. Abott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. During this search, it was discovered that M/s. Vitamax Health care Pvt. Ltd (the assessee in this appeal) was manufacturing medicines bearing brand names of other entities but was not paying duty on them. 3. Following up, officers investigated the assessee and found that it was manufacturing pharmaceuticals with brand names of other firms. Goods which bear the brand name of others are not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, the brand owner, the quantity, rate, price and invoice value for each and every invoice. He tabulated them in tables on pages 6-13 of the OIO. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand of excise duty with interest and penalties which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Submissions on behalf of the appellants 6. Learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions : (i) A search on the website of the patents department shows that many of the brands were not registered and hence they cannot be called brand names of other persons. (ii) One of the brands 'Ranemax' was the brand of the assessee itself and hence the goods cleared under this brand are eligible for exemption. (iii) Medicines containing chloroquine were exempted anyway by Notification No. 12/2012-CE and therefore, no duty can be charged on them. (iv) Therefore, the appellant cannot be said to be manufacturing goods under a brand name. There is no evidence in the OIO or in the impugned order that the brand name of the customer was used. (v) There is no evidence that the customers have permitted the assessee to manufacture goods wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that there is no evidence that the appellant had got any licence to put the brand names of another company. This is not a requirement under paragraph 4 of the Notification No. 8/2003-CE. If the appellant manufactured and cleared goods with the brand name of another person without proper licence from that firm, it is a matter of dispute between the parties. However, it does not make such goods eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. 12. Another submission of the appellant is that there is no evidence that the brand names belonged to the customers and in some cases, the products with the same brand names were sold to more than one customer. Again, we find that the brand name does not have to belong to the customer for the goods to be excluded from the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE. It is sufficient if there is a brand name and it is of some other person and not of the manufacturer. 13. Another submission of the appellant is that a search on the website of the patents and copyrights office does not show that all these brands have been registered. We find that paragraph 4 of the notification excluded even goods bearing unregistered brand names of othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of said duty and interest shall be deemed to be concluded; (b) where any duty as determined under sub-section (10) of Section 11A and the interest payable thereon under Section 11AA in respect of transactions referred to in clause (a) is paid within thirty days of the date of communication of the order of the Central Excise Officer who has determined such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person shall be twenty-five per cent of the penalty imposed, subject to the condition that such reduced penalty is also paid within the period so specified; (c) where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the person who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (10) of Section 11A shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty so determined: ******** RULE 26. Penalty for certain offences.- (1) Any person who acquires possession of, or....