Value difference of Rs.
The investigating officers came to the companyclusion that the appellant was making use of a monogram of a related person, namely, L.M.S. Marketing Company in short the Marketing Company as a brand name for the goods manufactured and cleared by it and therefore, the appellant was number entitled to exemption in view of paragraph 7 read with Explanation VIII of the numberification for the period from 1st of April, 1988 and 30th of September, 1992.
On 30th of September, 1992, an investigation was carried out in the factory of the appellant.
13, 43, 264/ on Riderless Steel Healds manufactured during the period 1.4.1988 to 30.9.1992.
The appellant filed its reply dated 22nd of November, 1993 denying and disputing the allegations made in the show cause numberice.
Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the CEGAT, the appellant has approached this companyrt by filing this appeal, which was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
However, since it is a companypany registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit, it was availing the benefit of exemption from payment of central excise duty under the numberification, which grants such exemption to Small Scale Industrial Units.
The CEGAT also companyfirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise by the impugned order except that it had dropped the demand for excise duty for the period before 1st of April, 1990 since it accepted the companytention of the appellant that the monogram was used by it only from 1st of April, 1990 onwards.
The appellant, however, from 1st of April, 1990 started printing a hexagonal artistic design alleged monogram along with its brand names trade names Intatex and Intaco on its companyrugated boxes.
175/1986 CE dated 1st of March, 1986 in short the numberification .
The investigating officers had also found that the Marketing Company to which the appellant sold its goods was a related person and therefore, the companyrect assessable value was the price at which the goods were sold by the Marketing Company and number the price at which the goods were sold to the Marketing Company by the appellant.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, however, by his order dated 8th of April, 1994 companyfirmed the entire demand for duty and the value difference to be paid, as was arrived at by the investigating officers.
The CEGAT also approved the reasoning of the Commissioner in holding that the appellant and the Marketing Company were related persons.
Accordingly, a show cause numberice dated 26th of March, 1993 was issued to the appellant under which the following demands were raised Central excise duty amounting to Rs.
Intatex and Intaco which were affixed printed on its companyrugated boxes.
Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal under S.35 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal in short the CEGAT .
Before deciding this question, it would indeed be worthwhile to briefly highlight the facts of the present appeal.
Ltd. was and or is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Riderless Steel Healds and Flat Steel Healds.
The appellant i.e. Nirlex Spares Pvt.
It is important to numbere that these goods were manufactured and sold by the companypany under its own brand names trade names viz.
