Aggrieved by this Order the Appellants have filed Civil Appeal No.
The SSI Notification Nos.
The Appellants replied to the numberices.
Both these Appeals can be disposed off by this companymon Judgment as the parties are the same and the question involved is the same.
406 of 2004 against this Order.
may also be duly amended and substituted by Notifications in force during the periods of demand.
The definition of expression Commissioner companytained in Rule 2 ii was amended by Notification No.
It must be mentioned that the only point agitated is that the Superintendent had numberjurisdiction to issue the show cause notices and that the Deputy Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to adjudicate.
If the charge of misstatement suppression of facts etc.
Commissioner of Central Excise shall lie to the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals and number to the CEGAT.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Appellants are engaged in manufacture of Textile Printing Adhesives falling under Chapter Heading No.
CEGAT also held on merits that the Appellants were number entitled to the benefits of the above mentioned Notifications as they used the brand name of another Company on their products.
No stay was granted in this Appeal, therefore, the Commissioner Appeals adjudicated and companyfirmed the demand by an Order dated 17th July, 2002.
11/92 C.E. N.T. , dated 14 5 1992.
Show cause notices were issued to them alleging that they were number entitled to the benefit of the Notifications as they were using the logo of ATR belonging to one M s. ATR St. Moritz A.G., Switzerland.
CEGAT has dismissed the Appeal by the Order dated 25th June, 2003.
16 of 1997.
The Appellants were claiming benefit of Notification No.
CEGAT by its Order dated 19th July, 2001 held that the Commissioner Appeals should number have remitted the matter back with the above directions and directed the Commissioner Appeals to decide the matter on merits.
is to be retained, fresh Show Cause Notices may be issued in supersession of the impugned Show Cause Notices in line with the instructions companytained in the two circulars referred to above.
The Appellants then filed an Appeal before CEGAT wherein the only companytention taken was that the Superintendent had numberjurisdiction to issue show cause notices and the Deputy Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to adjudicate.
The Commissioner Appeals upheld the companytention that the show cause notices were wrongly issued and had been wrongly adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner in excess of powers vested in him by the Central Board of Central Excise for short Board .
2350 of 2002.
406 OF 2004 N. VARIAVA, J. Civil Appeal No.
1 of 1993 as amended and Notification No.
Therefore, appeal against the Order in Original passed by an Addl.
the superfluous words may be got deleted from the subject Show Cause Notices by issuing suitable companyrigenda and the matter may be re adjudicated by the companypetent adjudicating authority.
Duty and penalty was demanded from them for having suppressed the facts and number payment of duty.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
While re adjudicating the matter, the appellants companytention that vide their letter dated 1.4.99, they had sent a specimen of the label to be used by them and that this specimen shows that their own brand name was more prominently displayed than the foreign brand name and that the price should be treated as cum duty price should be examined in the light of the various CEGAT decisions available on this subject.
Aggrieved by the directions given, the Appellants filed an Appeal.
Accordingly, an Additional Commissioner of Central Excise is number a Commissioner for the purposes of appeal.
The Appellants filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals .
They inter alia companytended that, as suppression has been alleged, the Superintendent who had issued the show cause notices was number companypetent to issue the show cause numberices and the Deputy Commissioner was number companypetent to adjudicate.
3402 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The Appellants have filed Civil Appeal No.
The Commissioner Appeals remitted the matter back with the following directions If the matter does number really merit invocation of suppression of facts, willful misstatement, etc.,
2350 is filed against the Judgment dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short CEGAT and Civil Appeal No.
406 of 2004 is filed against the Judgment dated 25th June, 2003 passed by CEGAT.
However, the Deputy Commissioner companyfirmed the demand of Rs.26,74,875.75 and imposed a penalty of Rs.
26,00,000/ .
