ARVIND CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants M/s. Arvind Chemicals Ltd., Bagru, Jaipur manufacture 'Mattresses' falling under Heading No. 94.04. They are issued a show cause notice dated 30 -4 -2001 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur -I in which it is alleged that during the years 1999 -2000 and 2000 -2001 (upto 2 -12 -2000), they wrongly availed the value based exemption (SSI exemption) under Notfn. Nos. 8/99 -C.E. dated 28 -2 -99 and 8/2000 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2000 and contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 49, 52A, 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is alleged that they had filed the classification declarations declaring as, "We are not using any brand name of any other party/firm". However, on visit to their factory premises by the officers of the Anti Evasion Wing of the Commissionerate on 4 -12 -2000, it was found that the mattresses manufactured by them were bearing the same logo and symbols as used by other companies of 'Arvind group' namely, M/s. Arvind International Ltd., Bagru and M/s. Aparna Poly Products Ltd., Bagru; that they were stitching a ribbon on one corner of the mattress and after putting the same into a polyethylene bag they were packing it into corrugated box. The ribbon, polyethylene bag and corrugated box were bearing a Symbol viz., 'an Arvind foam product'. The corrugated box in which the mattresses were finally packed, also bore the logo of Arvind Group Hindi letter

(2.) v* surrounded by 8 letters of 'A' in a circle (the facsimile of the logo/symbol are appended in the show cause notice); that the packing box also contains another emblem viz., 'ISO 9002' certified and encircled by the expression a 'Premium product from Arvind Group'. It is stated that all these logos/symbols/marks indicate a connection with the Arvind group of companies in the course of trade; that the exemption under the said notifications is not available if the specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person; that it is defined that a "brand name" on "trade name" shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. It is further alleged in the notice that the assessed deliberately suppressed the above facts and made a false declaration in the classification declaration filed by them with an intent to evade central excise duty. It is further stated that Sh. Parsa Ram Jangir, Authorized Signatory of the party in his statement dated 4 -12 -2000 deposed that their goods bore the aforementioned logo/monogram/symbol in the same style and manner as affixed by other companies of Arvind Group on their products; that M/s. Arvind International Ltd., M/s. Aparna Polyproducts Ltd., and M/s. Arvind Chemicals Ltd. were using common Logo/Mark/Symbol on their products. It is stated that Sh. Lalit Kumar Khetan, Director of the noticee party, in his statement, also affirmed the same facts and further stated that they mentioned the name 'Multi Flex' on their product. It is stated that Sh. Arvind Ba -joria and his family members manned all the units of Arvind Group that their marketing was centralized and that they were making joint publicity and shared the expenses incurred on this account.

(3.) In view of the above facts, it is alleged that the party is using the brand name of others who are not entitled for SSI exemption and the exemption being availed by them is not admissible to them. They alleged to have violated the provisions of aforesaid central excise rules by deliberately suppressing the fact with an intent to evade central excise duty. They have therefore been called upon to show cause why the exemption availed by them under the aforesaid notifications during the periods 1999 -2000 and 2000 -2001 (upto 2 -12 -2000) should not be denied to them and why a duty amounting to Rs. 23,87,992/ - should not be realised from them on the goods valued at Rs. 99,49,968/ - cleared by them during these periods under the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944. They have further been called upon to show cause why penalties should not be imposed on them under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q. Sh. Lalit Kumar Khetan, Director, and Sh. Parsa Ram Jangir, Authorized Signatory the noticee party are called upon to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 209A.