Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.34 seconds)The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Pushpam Pharmaceutical vs C.C.E. on 31 July, 1987
In case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v.
C.C.E. [1995 (78) E.L.T. (401) (S.C.), the apex court has held
that the extended period of five years under the proviso to
section 11A(1) is not applicable just for any omission on the part
Page 38 of 41
E/199,200/2007
E/547-550/2008
E/3088/2012
of the assessee, unless it is a deliberate attempt to escape from
payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties, the
omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he
must have done does not constitute suppression of fact. The
appellants therefore cannot be said to suppressed the facts as
they were under the impression that they were not liable to pay
duty. The Board circular dated 29.12.2005 added to the
confusion :
The Bureau Of Indian Standards Act, 1986
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai vs M/S. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 9 August, 2011
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
vs. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd.: 2011 (270) E.L.T. 643
(S.C.), the issue was whether the Appellant had cleared the
goods under question under any brand name. The Tribunal had
held that because the brand name "Kalvert" was not registered
in their name therefore it cannot be held that respondents were
using 'brand name'. The Tribunal further held that the name on
Page 25 of 41
E/199,200/2007
E/547-550/2008
E/3088/2012
the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondent in the
market could at best be termed as "House mark" and not brand
name/trade name. The Apex court on the above issues observed
as follows:
M/S. Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 16 December, 1994
In the book of "Trade Marks" by Sarkar, the distinction
between the expressions "House mark" and "Product mark" or
"Brand name" has been clearly brought out by way of reference
to the decision in Astra Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is
stated therein that "House mark" is used on all the products of
Page 26 of 41
E/199,200/2007
E/547-550/2008
E/3088/2012
the manufacturer and that it is usually a device or a form of
emblem of words or both. It was also pointed out that for each
product a separate mark known as a "Product mark" or "Brand
name" is used which is invariably a word or combination of word
and letter or numeral by which the product is identified and
asked for. It was also stated that in respect of all products both
the "Product mark" and "Brand name" would appear side by side
on all the labels, cartons etc. and that the "House mark" is used
generally as an emblem of the manufacturer projecting the
image of the manufacturer, whereas "Brand name" is a name or
trade mark either unregistered or registered under the Act.
Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of Incia on 20 October, 1989
In the case of Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. U.O.I:
Collector Of Central Excise, Jaipurc vs M/S Raghuvar (India) Ltd on 11 May, 2000
In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur versus
Raghuvar (India) Ltd.: 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.), the
apex court held that
"14. The above conclusion of ours is itself sufficient to
answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against
the manufacturer, even de hors the applicability or
otherwise of the principle of construction - Generalia
specialibus non derogent, they do not operate on the same
field or cover the same area, to be reconciled in order to
avert any clash or inconsistency. That apart, even if it is to
be assumed that they relate to one and the same nature of
demand from the manufacturer of any amount due from
him to the State, the provisions contained in Section 11A
are general in nature and application and the Modvat
Scheme being a specific and special beneficial scheme,
with self-contained procedure, manner and method for its
implementation, providing for its own remedies to undo
any mischief committed by the manufacturer in abuses
thereof, the provisions of the said special scheme alone will
govern such a situation and there is no scope for reading
the stipulations contained in a general provision like
Section 11A into the provision of the rules in question
which alone will govern in its entirety the enforcement of
the Modvat Scheme. The question as to the relative nature
of the provisions general or special has to be determined,
with reference to the area and extent of their application
either generally in all circumstances or specially in
particular situations and not on the ground that one is a
mere provision in the Act and the other is a provision in
the Rule. We are not also concerned in this case with any
challenge to the inconsistency of a rule with any statutory
provision in the Act".
Cosmic Dye Chemical vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 6 September, 1994
In the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central
Excise, Bombay (1995) 6 SCC 117, this Court held that intention
to evade duty must be proved for invoking the proviso to section
11A(1) for extended period of limitation. It has been further held
that intent to evade duty is built into the expression "fraud and
collusion" but mis-statement and suppression is qualified by the
preceding word "wilful". Therefore, it is not correct to say that there
can be suppression or misstatement of fact, which is not wilful and
yet constitutes a permissible ground for invoking the proviso to
section 11A.