RAJDOOT PAINTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As in these thirteen appeals, eight filed by the assessees against different Orders -in -Original and five filed by Revenue - the issues involved are interlinked, these are being taken for decision together.

(2.) 1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that all the eight assessees manufacture various brands of paints and varnishes, having their own separate factory, and avail of the benefit of small -scale exemption Notification Nos. 175/86 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -86 and 1/93 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1993; that M/s. Rajdoot Paints Ltd. (Rajdoot in short) were initially a marketing company and traded in paints; that due to increase in sales a manufacturing unit was set up mainly for the manufacture of dry distempers and primers; that they subsequently started manufacturing paints; that they, being a marketing company, also purchase paints of various brands from manufacturers, who are availing the benefit of SSI exemption; that different show cause notices dated 2 -11 -1995 were issued to all the assessees after visit by the officers of the Directorate General of Anti Evasion on 18 -10 -94 the factory and the office premises of the assessees all over India and resuming the records and investigation; that the main allegations in show cause notices are :

(3.) 1 The learned Counsel, arguing on behalf of M/s. Rajdoot, submitted that the Department had conducted detailed investigation and verified the details of brand names used, the price charged at the factory gate and at the depots during the period April, 1990 to March, 1994; that no objection was raised for use of the brand name of other SSI units, nor was any objection raised on the trading activity; that, however, the demand was raised only on the ground that the brand name "Spred" belonged to an ineligible person and demand of duty was confirmed which had been set aside by the Tribunal vide Order Nos. 496 -502/2000, dated 25 -10 -2000 [2001 (134) E.L.T. 281 (Tribunal)]; that as the entire period (October, 1990 to September, 1994) was covered during earlier investigation, the present proceedings are hit by doctrine of constructive res judicata. Reliance has been placed on the decision in C.C.E. v. Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd., 2000 (119) E.L.T. 77 (T) wherein it has been held when an earlier notice had been issued and adjudicated upon on the basis of agreement and all the allegations ended in favour of the appellants; that "another look into the same agreement for fishing out some new materials is not permissible".