Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Jalandhar vs M/S. Ram Industries on 20 March, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT II EXCISE APPEAL No. 2696 OF 2004-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 165-166-CE/CHD/2004 dated 27.02.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? CCE, Jalandhar Appellant Vs. M/s. Ram Industries Respondent
Appearance:
Shri V.K. Agarwal, JDR for the Revenue Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing:20th March, 2008 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand of Rs. 44,221 and penalty were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Case of the Revenue is that respondents are manufacturing branded goods with brand name of SMITH and have availed the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification. The goods cleared with the brand name to M/s. Smith Enterprises who are traders and traders are not entitled for the benefit of SSI Exemption notification. The case of the Revenue is that the goods manufactured by the respondents have the brand name SMITH embossed on it. Therefore, demand was rightly made.
4. Respondents submitted that at the time of visit by the Revenue officers, no branded goods were recovered from the premises of the respondents and no facility of casting was available. Contention of the respondents that the branded Breast Drills were not manufactured by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is rightly passed.
5. We find that brand name SMITH was embossed on the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondents. The respondents admitted the fact that they are clearing Breast Drill to M/s. Smith Enterprises. As the Breast Drills are having brand name SMITH, hence, we find merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Appeal is allowed. The demand confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority is restored and keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case the respondents are liable to penalty of Rs. 5000/-. Appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT (B.S.V. MURTHY) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Dated 24th March, 2008 RK