Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Nu-Tread Business Machines (P) Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 2 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(100)ELT445(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. These applications have been filed for dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalties levied under the impugned order in the common proceedings against the applicants. The amount of duty involved in each of the cases and penalty involved is as under :-
A. No. Duty Penalty ------- ------- --------- E/376/97 Rs. 12,71,000/- Rs. 12,71,000/- E/377/97 Rs. 8,10,700/- Rs. 8,10,700/- E/378/97 Rs. 4,67,460/- Rs. 4,67,460/- E/379/97 Rs. 28,550/- Rs. 28,550/-. The period of dispute is April, 1990 to May, 1994.
2. The duty has been demanded for the reasons that the appellants had manufactured photocopier under the brand name of Cannon and also without the brand name out of imported components.
3. The ld. Advocate pleaded that he is reserving all his pleas regarding the manufacture of the goods by the appellants on merits and is only urging that the appellants could not have been denied the benefit of Notification 175/86 and Notification 1/94 as the brand name stated to have been used was that of a foreign brand name owner. He has pleaded that in similar cases the Tribunal has taken divergent views as to the eligibility of the notification in question and the matter has been referred to Larger Bench for resolution of issue in the case of Sharp Business Machines reported in 1995 (61) ECR 637. He has pleaded in view of that the duty attributable to the goods carrying the foreign brand name could not be demanded and has sought for the dispensation of the same. Regarding the other goods i.e. without the Brand name the duty liability will come to Rs. 3,06,600/-. The position was asked to be checked in this regard by the ld. JDR. He confirms the position.
4. In view of what has been pleaded we observe that the appellants prima facie are entitled to the dispensation of pre-deposit of duty attributable to the goods on which the foreign brand name Cannon allegedly affixed.
5. The ld. Advocate has filed a statement of duty payable yearwise in this regard and which has been perused by the ld. JDR who confirms that the statements reflects the correct position.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that provision for levy of statutory penalty came to be introduced on 20-9-1996 and statutory penalty of 100% could not have been levied in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT -120 ITR1, we order that on the applicant M/s. Nu-Tread pre-depositing a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs (Rupees four lakhs only) on or before 29th April, 1997 and reporting compliance on 30th April, 1997, the pre-deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalties levied on the applicants shall stand dispensed with and the recovery of the same stayed pending appeals. The matter will be called on 30th April, 1997 for reporting compliance.