SWADESH INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of six appeals filed by the appellants against the common order in appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27 -7 -2000 vide which he had affirmed the common order -in -original of the Additional Commissioner dated 18 -2 -1999 who confirmed the duty demands and imposed penalties of various amounts as indicated in his order -in -original.

(2.) APPELLANTS (1) to (5) were engaged in the manufacture of auto parts falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to CETA. They were manufacturing the specified goods bearing brand name "SI" which belonged to appellant No. (1) and marketing the same through appellant No. (6). They were all availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 -C.E., dated 28 -2 -1993. During the course of checking their factory premises by the officers of the Central Excise, it was found that the SSI Exemption to appellants No. (2) to (5) was hit by Clause (4) of Notification No. 1/93 -C.E. and the branded goods were wrongly cleared without payment of duty and as such were liable to be confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. From the factory premises of appellant Nos. (3) and (5) branded goods (auto parts) bearing "SI" trade mark valued at Rs. 94,745/ - and Rs. 7,290/ - respectively were seized on the reasonable belief that they were liable to be confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Similarly, branded goods with brand name "SI" valued at Rs. 22,576/ - were detained at the factory premises of appellant No. (2). However, no manufactured goods were found in the factory premises of appellant Nos. (1) and (4). On search of premises of appellant No. (6) through whom the other appellants were marketing, the goods valued at Rs. 46,92,917/ - were detained. The Statements of the partners of appellant No. (1), supervisor of appellant No. (4) and partners of appellant No. (6) were also recorded. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 10 -6 -1997 was issued to all the appellants for the confiscation of the branded goods under Rule 173Q of the Rules and also for confirmation of the duty amounts as indicated therein and imposition of penalties. On appellant No. (6), penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules was proposed to be imposed, in that show cause notice.

(3.) APPELLANTS contested the correctness of that show cause notice. They in their reply alleged that appellants No. (1) to (5) were manufacturing not common but different goods and they all were separate legal entities. The brand name "SI" was being used by them under mutual settlement/memorandum arrived at between them. They further averred that packing of goods with brand name at traders premise did not attract mischief of para 4 of the exemption notification. Appellant No. (6) also denied his liability for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules.