VINAYAK ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have already pre -deposited a sum of Rs. 23,466/ - out of the total duty demand of Rs. 31,562/ -. They are required to pre -deposit a balance amount of Rs. 8,096/ - and equivalent penalty amount. The appellants have been denied the SSI benefit on the ground that they have used brand name of others. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the show cause notice does not disclose as to whose brand name has been used and the person owning the same. Therefore, the order is bad in law and the same is required to be set aside. He submits that as the appellants have already deposited 70% of the disputed duty amount, therefore, balance amount be waived. The Counsel submits that the party has used brand name of others on job work basis. Therefore the brand name is belonging to them and not to the principal supplier of raw material.

(2.) THE learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that the fact of the use of brand name of the principal supplier of raw material is sufficient cause to deny the benefit in the light of the Honble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian Mgt. Advisors and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex., Delhi - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.).

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the matter requires to be examined in detail based on the facts and evidence and that can be done at the time of final hearing. At present, we are not convinced that strong prima facie case is in their favour to grant waiver as prayed for by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are directed to pre -deposit balance disputed duty amount of Rs. 8,096/ - (Rupees Eight thousand ninety -six only) within two months from today and on such deposit, pre -deposit of disputed penalty amount stands waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The stay application is allowed in the above terms.