Cce Vs. Dicks Laboratories Ltd.

Cce vs Dicks Laboratories Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 14, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39709

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/39709
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj, M T K.C.
Decided On: Jul 14, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Dicks Laboratories Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(102)ECC382

Excerpt

.....the respondents. no request for adjournment has also been received from them, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing ld. dr.2. from the record it is evident that the respondents during the relevant period were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods.they used logo belonging to another person on their products. at the time of visit to the factory by the central excise officers on 29.1.96, certain goods were also found lying unaccounted and those were seized.after serving scn to them, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand by denying the benefit of ssi exemption notification, for having cleared the goods under the brand name of another person. that authority also ordered the confiscation of the seized goods and imposed penalty under rule 173q on the respondents.3. ld. commissioner (appeals) has reversed the order of the adjudicating authority by observing that the use of logo/house mark of m/s. prem (another person) on the goods could not disentitle the respondents from ssi exemption as they were using their brand name also. but the view taken up by him cannot be accepted being contrary to the ratio of law laid down by the apex court in the case of cce, tricky v. gmsini industries ltd., 2005 (99) ecc 713 wherein it has been observed that the use of logo of another person would disentitle the assessee for claiming the exemption.4. similarly the view of the ld. commissioner (appeals) that the goods were not liable to be confiscated and the case was covered by rule 226 of the rules as there was only non-maintenance of the proper record by the respondents, cannot be accepted being erroneous in law. the non-accountal of the seized goods had not been disputed by the respondents, therefore, the confiscation of the goods was rightly ordered by the adjudicating authority under rule 173q. it is not a case of mere non-maintenance of proper record by the respondents, but is a case where they failed to account for the goods in their.....

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has dropped the duty demand and set aside the confiscation of the unaccounted goods. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment has also been received from them, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing Ld. DR.2. From the record it is evident that the respondents during the relevant period were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods.

They used logo belonging to another person on their products. At the time of visit to the factory by the Central Excise Officers on 29.1.96, certain goods were also found lying unaccounted and those were seized.

After serving SCN to them, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand by denying the benefit of SSI exemption notification, for having cleared the goods under the brand name of another person. That authority also ordered the confiscation of the seized goods and imposed penalty under Rule 173Q on the respondents.

3. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order of the adjudicating authority by observing that the use of logo/House Mark of M/s. Prem (another person) on the goods could not disentitle the respondents from SSI exemption as they were using their brand name also. But the view taken up by him cannot be accepted being contrary to the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Tricky v. Gmsini Industries Ltd., 2005 (99) ECC 713 wherein it has been observed that the use of logo of another person would disentitle the assessee for claiming the exemption.

4. Similarly the view of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were not liable to be confiscated and the case was covered by Rule 226 of the Rules as there was only non-maintenance of the proper record by the respondents, cannot be accepted being erroneous in law. The non-accountal of the seized goods had not been disputed by the respondents, therefore, the confiscation of the goods was rightly ordered by the adjudicating authority under Rule 173Q. It is not a case of mere non-maintenance of proper record by the respondents, but is a case where they failed to account for the goods in their record.

Moreover, even under Rule 226, confiscation of the non-accountal goods is provided and Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) could not set aside the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine on the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order in this regard cannot be sustained. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the Order-in-Original is restored. Appeal of the revenue accordingly stands accepted.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Dicks Laboratories Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge P Bajaj, M T K.C.