Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Fine Industries on 22 October, 2002
6. The respondents argument that they were under the bonafide belief that they could legally avail SSI exemption till the confusion was cleared by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE Vs. Fine Industries (supra) is also not acceptable for the reason that the said decision dealt with the implication of a manufacturer using a brand name similar to the brand name belonging to another person and the admissibility of SSI exemption when an assessee used brand name of another person manufacturing identical goods. No judicial authority is brought to our notice which had held earlier to the LB decision that a manufacturer could avail SSI benefit if he used the brand name of another assessee manufacturing identical goods. No basis is brought out to substantiate the claim of bonafide belief. Therefore, the plea of bonafide belief, we find is without merit. Moreover, longer period of limitation was validly invoked as the respondents had wilfully mis-represented facts in the statutory declaration made under Rule 173 of the CER.