LAWS(CE)-2001-8-533

M/S UNJHA AYURVEDIC PHARMACY Vs. CCE, JAIPUR

Decided On August 21, 2001
M/S Unjha Ayurvedic Pharmacy Appellant
V/S
Cce, Jaipur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption inspite of the fact that they were using the trademark of another firm which was not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption. He also remanded some other issues to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo examination.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of patent Ayurvedic medicines. The department noticed that the appellants were using the trade name "Unjha' and the trade logo depicting picture of "Hathi' (elephant) in relation to the goods manufactured by them and were availing of exemption as a SSI under Notf. No.1/93 dt.28.2.93. During the course of enquiry the authorities found that the brand name "Hathi" belonged to M/s. Unjha Pharmacy. Statement of Shri Prabodh v. Shah. Partner of M/s. UAP was recorded wherein he stated that M/s.UAP come into existence in 1981 and prior to that he alongwith other partners having firm in the name of M/s. Unjha Pharmacy; that M/s.Unjha Pharmacy was dissolved on 21.10.1981; that they were using the elephant trademark on the medicines manufactured by them. The department alleged that the trademark 'Hathi' was the trademark of M/s. Unjha Pharmacy and since M/s.Unjha Ayurvedic Pharmacy was using the trademark 'Hathi' they were not entitled to the SSI exemption in terms of Notf. No.1/93. A SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the duty amounting to Rs.17,84,029/ - should not be demanded from them, why a penalty should not be imposed under Section 173Q and Rule 226 and why the interest should not be charged under the provisions of Section 11AB.

(3.) IN reply to the SCN, the appellants submitted that the brand name 'Hathi' was owned by them and they were using their own brand name and since the brand name was theirs, therefore, there was no violation of any provisions of exemption notification and that SSI exemption notification was available to them. Since the longer period beyond the period of six months was invoked for demand of duty, the appellants submitted that there was no intention to evade payment of duty and, therefore longer period cannot be invoked. It was also submitted that the provisions of Section 11AB and 11AC were not applicable to them and penalty under under Rules 173Q and 226 could not be imposed. However, the authorities below held as indicated above.