Ltd., Chandigarh was also printed on the label in addition ARK was put on the Sanitary fittings by pasting stickers and also by affixing tickli on the body of the fittings.
The CEGAT, however, gave specific finding that stylised ARK is a trade name of M s. Arkson within the meaning of relevant para of Notification No.175/86 CE.
Proceedings were started against them for demand of duty as brand name ARK in stylised script was brand name of M s. Arkson Pvt.
On remand the matter has been decided by the Additional Commissioner who companyfirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on all the respondents holding that since M s. Arkson Pvt.
Appeals filed by the Revenue questioning companyrectness of the decision rendered by the Commissioner Appeals , Central Excise Customs, Chandigarh in short Commissioner Appeals , were dismissed.
On appeal filed by the Assessees, the CEGAT remanded the matter for de numbero decision after arriving at a finding in regard to the eligibility to exemption of M s. Arkson Pvt.
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondents manufacture Brass Sanitary Bathroom fittings falling under Sub heading 8481.80 and 8481.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in short Tariff Act .
The said authority set aside the adjudication orders holding that eligibility of M s. Arkson Pvt.
September, 1991 and number from April, 1992 as companytended and extended period of limitation was invokable as the fact regarding manufacture of the goods affixed with brand name another person was never brought to the knowledge the Department.
The goods were packed in cardboard boxes on which stylised brand name ARK was printed and labels affixed on cardboard boxes also showed the brand name ARK in the stylised script name and address of M s. Arkson Pvt.
Ltd. Initially the matter was decided by the Collector, Central Excise who denied the exemption under Notification No.175/86 CE holding that the respondents were affixing specified goods with the brand name of another person number eligible for the grant of exemption and also there was suppression on the part of the respondents.
WITH Civil Appeal No.4375 of 2006 and Civil Appeal Nos.7927 28 of 2001 .
Ltd. was more than Rs.2 crores during 1990 91 and 1991 92 and accordingly the benefit of Notification was also number available to it.
It was held by the impugned judgment that the respondents were eligible to avail benefit of the exemption numberification No.175/86 CE and para 7 thereof will number be attracted in the present case.
The Additional Commissioner gave findings to the effect that the respondents had started affixing stylised brand name ARK w.e.f.
Respondents questioned companyrectness of the view expressed by the adjudicating authority before the before the Commissioner Appeals .
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. In these appeals, Revenue questions companyrectness of the judgment rendered by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi, in short CEGAT .
Ltd. was number eligible for the benefit of Notification No.l75/86 CE since it was number holding any L 4 licence the casting of pig iron manufactured in their proprietary companycern M s. Arkson Engg.
The said numberification was amended by Notification No.223/87 C.E. dated 22.9.1987.
Ltd. under Notification No.175/86 CE and to arrive at a definite finding in regard to other pleas of use of trade mark w.e.f.
All the respondents were availing exemption under Notification No.175/86 CE.
Co. was exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.208/83 dated 1.8.1983 and numberdeclaration as required to be filed under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in short the Rules , was filed by it castings falling under Sub heading 7325.10 of the Tariff were specified in the Annexure to the Notification.
April, l992 and other related matters companycerning time bar.
