ELECTION INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeals are directed against Order -in -Appeal Nos. PD/100 to 103/Th -II/2004, dated 30 -6 -2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the learned lower appellate authority upheld the order of the adjudicating authority wherein a duty demand of Rs. 1,32,919/ - along with interest thereon was confirmed against M/s. Chemipol, Dahanu apart from an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - on Shri Sajjan Kothari, Authorized Signatory of M/s. Chemipol under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further, penalties were imposed of Rs. 50,000/ - on M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. and Rs. 25,000/ - on Shri Anil Patel, Director of M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. The goods valued at Rs. 2,37,850/ - seized at the premises, of M/s. Chemipol were held liable to confiscation and the goods have already been released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/ -. Similarly the goods seized from the premises of M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. valued at Rs. 1,18,000/ - was confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/ -. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants are before us. The facts relevant to the case are as follows: -

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that "ELECTRON' name was printed on the Carboys in which the chemicals were supplied as per the instructions of the buyer. The said name was printed only as a mark to identify the goods supplied to M/s. Electron Industries Ltd. The said name is not registered. It is only a house name and not a trade name or brand name as defined in the notification. Therefore, the appellants have correctly discharged the excise duty liability by availing the benefit of SSI exemption. In view of the above, impugned demands are not sustainable. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kolkata -I v. Synotex Industries -, 2012 (278) E.L.T. 90 (Tri. -Kol.) and CCE, Jaipur v. Thio Pharma - : 2003 (151) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. -Del.). He further submits that there was no intention to evade payment of duty as Revenue has not adduced any evidence in support of charge of suppression of facts and, therefore, imposition of equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC is not sustainable in law. As regards the penalty imposed on Shri Sajjan Kothari, he is only an employee of the main appellant and imposition of penalty both on the appellant firm and authorized signatory is not warranted.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides.