TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leged that the assessees had suppressed the fact that they were affixing sticker labels and ink stamps containing monogram of Ram's ® registered in the name of M/s. Rammaica & Co. (India) Ltd. on plywood, flush doors and black board manufactured by them, from the excisable authorities. The assessee refuted this allegation and contended that there was no requirement under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules of mentioning brand name in the classification list and in this connection they relied upon the CBEC circular dated 30-12-1988 clarifying that use of the same brand name in different categories of goods should not be a ground to deny SSI benefit (the assessees are brand name owner) to manufacture of plastic laminated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat they were eligible to exemption under Notification No. 175/86 since the brand name "Shyam" used on their product was not owned and registered by any other person in respect of identical goods, in the light of Board's clarification dated 30-12-1988 and in the case of Precise Electronics reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 69, the Tribunal also held that there was sufficient force in the appellant's contention that in terms of Rule 173B no responsibility was cast on them to declare the trade name or brand name affixed by them on their goods. Relevant extract from Para 13 of the Intercity Cable System (P) Ltd. decision is reproduced herein below :- "In view of the above discussion we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oke the longer period of limitation. 4.1 In the case of CCE v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required to be established before it is saddled with any liability, beyond the period of six months. In the case of Prolite Engineering Co. [1995 (75) E.L.T. 257 (Guj.), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that non-disclosure of information which is not required to be disclosed or recorded by statutory provision or prescribed proforma does not amount to suppression or concealment so as to make t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e shown on their goods belonged to M/s. Dai lchi and still used such brand name, and hence there was no need for any further enquiry and they should have in the very first instance disclosed the factual position to the excise authorities in view of the clear cut provision in para 4 of Notification 1/93 for claiming benefit of SSI exemption. 5.2 In the case of Vax Institute Laboratory Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta [2001 (138) E.L.T. 811] the assessee filed classification list in which there was no mention that they were manufacturing Anaflam tablets under agreement with M/s. Albert David Ltd. whose Brand Monogram they were using on their product. Although, the label of the goods and cartons contained the inscription to the effect that the goods wer....