LAWS(SC)-2006-11-151

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. KHANNA INDUSTRIES

Decided On November 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Appellant
V/S
KHANNA INDUSTRIES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals, Revenue questions correctness of the judgment rendered by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi, (in short CEGAT). It was held by the impugned judgment that the respondents were eligible to avail benefit of the exemption notification No.175/86-CE and para 7 thereof will not be attracted in the present case. Appeals filed by the Revenue questioning correctness of the decision rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh (in short Commissioner (Appeals)), were dismissed.

(2.) The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

(3.) On remand the matter has been decided by the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on all the respondents holding that since M/s. Arkson Pvt. Ltd. was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.l75/86-CE since it was not holding any L-4 licence; the casting of pig iron manufactured in their proprietary concern M/s. Arkson Engg. Co. was exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.208/83 dated 1.8.1983 and no declaration as required to be filed under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the Rules), was filed by it; castings falling under Sub-heading 7325.10 of the Tariff were specified in the Annexure to the Notification. In addition the Additional Commissioner, relying upon decision in the case of Mentha and Allied Products v. Union of India 1995 (77) ELT A 133(SC), concluded that aggregate sale figure of M/s. Arkson Pvt. Ltd. was more than Rs. 2 crores during 1990-91 and 1991-92 and accordingly the benefit of Notification was also not available to it. The Additional Commissioner gave findings to the effect that the respondents had started affixing stylised brand name "ARK" w.e.f. September, 1991 and not from April, 1992 as contended and extended period of limitation was inviolable as the fact regarding manufacture of the goods affixed with brand name another person was never brought to the knowledge the Department.