Judgment
1. Heard both sides and perused the record. Duty demand is in respect of Syrups, Wafers etc. manufactured by the appellant under the brand name/logo of "HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA". When the Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's unit on 27-5-99, they saw certain stocks with the appellants. Duty demand is on such stocks. The demand is on the ground that the appellant was using the brand name of another person and, that made off the goods ineligible for small scale exemption.2. The contention of the learned Counsel is that duty demand remains already discharged and there is an interim order of injunction of Delhi High Court against the appellant in regard to use of the said brand name. The contention of the learned Counsel is that since the ownership of the brand name is in dispute before the Hon'ble High Court, the imposition of penalty and confiscation were not justified. The submission is that duty liability is not on account of any willful acts on the part of the appellant; but because of dispute in the family about the real ownership of the brand name.
3. We find merit in the appellant's contention in regard to confiscation and penalty. The judgment of the High Court makes it clear that the ownership of the brand name is in dispute. The duty demand also is in regard to stocks found at the time of visit. Thus, the demand is within the normal period specified under Section 11A.Confiscation and penalty are not justified when the duty demand is within the normal period and non-payment is the result of bona fide dispute.
4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the confiscation and penalty. Duty demand made is confirmed.