Prestige Counting Instruments P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Prestige Counting Instruments P. vs Commr. of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 19, 1999

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15238

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/15238
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Feb 19, 1999
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prestige Counting Instruments P.

Respondent

Commr. of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)LC156Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appellant in appeal no. e/4642/94 is a manufacturer, inter alia of counting and measuring instruments. it manufactures some of these instruments under licence from two foreign companies samson of germany and jaquet of switzerland. the instruments manufactured in pursuance of the agreements bore on them as inscription to that effect. it under licence samson-west germany or under licence jaquet-switzerland. these are in addition to the name of the manufacturer, which also appeared on the goods. the department issued a notice quashing to deny the notification 175/86 which the assessee was availing of on the ground that using these expression amounted to display of the goods of brand name or trade name of these foreign persons who are not entitled to the benefit of notification. the notice also contain a proposal to confiscate 51 instruments valued at rs. 3.03 lakhs approx. details of which, on the date of visit of the officers, were not entered in the rg 1 register. penalty on the assessee, one of its directors and its works manager, who are the appellants in the other two appeals, was also proposed. after considering the cause shown and hearing the noticees the commissioner, in the order impugned in the appeal has confirmed the duty demanded, ordered, confiscation of these instruments and appropriation of rs. 30,000/- deposited for their provisional release and imposed penalty on all the three. hence these appeals.2. the issue with regard to the availability of the notification is settled in favour of the appellant by various decisions of the tribunal. of these, we only need refer to weigand india p. ltd. v.c.c.e. -1997 (94) e.l.t. 124. in para 7 of mat decision, the tribunal held that the name plate affixed by the appellant on the goods manufactured it indicating that they were manufactured in technical collaboration with the collaborating company, did not establish the relationship between the product and the collaborating companies, and accepted that the.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellant in Appeal No. E/4642/94 is a manufacturer, inter alia of counting and measuring instruments. It manufactures some of these instruments under licence from two foreign companies Samson of Germany and Jaquet of Switzerland. The instruments manufactured in pursuance of the agreements bore on them as inscription to that effect. It under licence Samson-West Germany or under licence Jaquet-Switzerland. These are in addition to the name of the manufacturer, which also appeared on the goods. The department issued a notice quashing to deny the Notification 175/86 which the assessee was availing of on the ground that using these expression amounted to display of the goods of brand name or trade name of these foreign persons who are not entitled to the benefit of notification. The notice also contain a proposal to confiscate 51 instruments valued at Rs. 3.03 lakhs approx. details of which, on the date of visit of the officers, were not entered in the RG 1 register. Penalty on the assessee, one of its directors and its works manager, who are the appellants in the other two appeals, was also proposed. After considering the cause shown and hearing the noticees the Commissioner, in the order impugned in the appeal has confirmed the duty demanded, ordered, confiscation of these instruments and appropriation of Rs. 30,000/- deposited for their provisional release and imposed penalty on all the three. Hence these appeals.

2. The issue with regard to the availability of the notification is settled in favour of the appellant by various decisions of the Tribunal. Of these, we only need refer to Weigand India P. Ltd. v.C.C.E. -1997 (94) E.L.T. 124. In para 7 of mat decision, the Tribunal held that the name plate affixed by the appellant on the goods manufactured it indicating that they were manufactured in technical collaboration with the collaborating company, did not establish the relationship between the product and the collaborating companies, and accepted that the reference to the circumstance that the technical know-how was provided by somebody else cannot be regarded as amounting to using the brand name of another person. The other factor, emphasized by the advocate for the appellant, that each of the foreign collaborators had a brand name, which did not appear on the product in question, and that what appeared was only their name, that too incomplete is also in the assessees favour. The asses-see was hence not disentitled to the benefit of the Modvat ratio.

3. It is contended with regard to the other aspect that the goods were not fully manufactured. They were precision instruments and had to be calibrated and accordingly marked in order for them to perform their function. It is contended that this aspect has not been dealt with in the manner required by the Collector. The goods are seen to have been seized in a panchnama. This was not available and it is therefore not possible to say whether the panchnama indicated that they were in fully manufactured condition or not i.e. whether they had been marked or calibrated or not. This appears to be what the record of the Collector was in mind which he says indicates these to be fully manufactured.

There is no material evidence to rebut this finding. We are therefore, unable to interfere with this part of the impugned order. Redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- is commensurate with the offence and the value of the goods. It does not call for further reduction.

4. No specific reason has been indicated for imposition of penalty on the other two appellants. It would appear that penalty is on the finding that the benefit of notification has been incorrectly available. Accordingly we allow those two appeals and set aside the penalty imposed. While the penalty on the assessee may appear to be also on account of failure to enter the goods in the record, we do not consider this penalty should be imposed in addition to the redemption fine following confiscation of goods. We set aside the penalty imposed.

5. Appeal E/4642/94 is allowed in part. The other two appeals are allowed. Consequential relief, if any.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Prestige Counting Instruments P. vs Commr. of C. Ex. Same Subject Land Acquisition