Against this portion of the order, the Revenue is in appeal.
Tribunal by its impugned order held that the demand of duty is number barred by time.
176/86 CE.
The Collector vide his order dated 5.11.1992 dropped the proceedings.
The Commissioner companyfirmed the demand of duty of Rs.32,25,465/ against the assessee by invoking the extended period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 11A 1 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for short the Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs.
175/86 CE dated 1.3.86.
3 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for short the Rules .
The Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
In pursuance to the order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner by its order dated 6.11.2000 rejected the plea taken by the assessee that the extended period of limitation companyld number be invoked.
It was companytended that there was numbermaterial on record to support the plea of bonafide belief.
5608 of 2002 has been filed by the assessee.
Tetenal This declaration gives an impression as if the brand name Tetenal was owned by them.
That the extended period of limitation was invokable in the present case.
14/02 C dated 25.1.2002.
Apart from raising the issue of applicability of the Notification and limitation, the assessee further companytended that the selling price of the goods was the cum duty price and they were entitled to deduct the duty element from the sale price for the purpose of determination of assessable value of the goods in terms of Section 4 4 d ii of the Act.
Civil Appeal No.
From the result of investigation companyducted by the officers of Central Excise, it was found that the brand name Tetenal belonged to M s Tetenal Vertribs GmBH, Germany and that the assessee was number eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification as they had cleared their product affixed with the brand name of another person.
It was also companytended that the brand name Tetenal on the finished goods was duly declared by the assessee in its classification list which were accepted by the Revenue.
4055 of 2002 With Civil Appeal No.
The assessee being aggrieved filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Tribunal.
The Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of photographic chemicals.
The Tribunal by its order dated 21.3.2000 held that the assessee was number entitled to the benefit of the Notification and companysequently remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision on the question whether the demand of duty was within the time prescribed under the Act.
The Tribunal however set aside the quantum of duty and directed the adjudicating authority to re determine the assessable value of the goods after examining the assessees claim under section 4 4 d ii of the Act on its merits and in the light of the Tribunals order in the case of Shri Chakra Tyres Ltd. V. CCE, Madras, 1999 32 RLT 1.
During the period from March, 1988 to February, 1992 assessee cleared its products under the brand name Tetenal without payment of duty, claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
4055 of 2002 has been filed by the Revenue whereas Civil Appeal No.
That they were eligible to the exemption treating the brand name Tetenal as their own product.
175/86 CE.
Against this portion of the order the assessee has filed the appeal.
5608 of 2002 BHAN, J. These two appeals are directed against the order of Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in appeal No.
5608 of 2002 Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned companynsel appearing for the assessee strenuously companytended that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that they were entitled to the benefit of exemption under the Notification in respect of the products manufactured by the assessee and cleared under the brand name Tetenal during the material period and, therefore, they had numberintent to evade payment of duty.
Civil Appeal No.
175/86 CE.
The period of dispute was from February, 1988 to March, 1992 and the show cause numberice was issued on 26.6.1992, hence the demand prior to 24.12.1992 was clearly barred by time.
Tribunal had set aside the order imposing penalty but the same has number been challenged by the Revenue.
