Cce Jalandhar (Hq At Chandigarh) vs M/S Asian Polymers

[Arising out of OIA No.138/CE/JAL/2006, dt.30.03.2006, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar

CCE Jalandhar (HQ at Chandigarh) Appellant

Vs

M/s Asian Polymers Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Yashpal Sharma, Authorised Representative

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No

Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication

in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen

the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes

authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:23.01.2015

Final Order No.51080/2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Adjudication Order was set aside on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.98,000.00 alongwith interest and penalty for the period 18.04.1994 to 30.06.1996.

2. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Adjudicating authority denied the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that the Respondents used the brand name of another party. The Respondents declared the product and use of the brand name in their classification list. It is seen that the Department approved the declaration filed by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vora Products Vs CCE Pune II  2002 (143) ELT 84 (Tri-Bom). In that case, it has been held that even when admittedly fact of use of brand name of another person not disclosed, approval of classification list claiming exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. presumes such necessary enquiries conducted by department as would entitle assessee to SSI exemption. In the present case, the Respondent declared the use of brand name in the declaration. So, there is no suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty.

3. We also notice that the amount involved is much less than the monetary limit as prescribed by the Board vide Circular No Board Circular F.No.390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 17.8.2011. In view of that, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (P.K. Das)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb

2