2018 (9) TMI 902 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Penalty – SSI Exemption – use of Brand Name of others – only allegation against the appellant is that they dealt with the goods on which duty was not discharged – Held that:- The penalties imposed under Rule 26 are excessive and requires interference – the penalties imposed on M/s. Raj Ganesh Enterprises is reduced from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 1,50,000/-; M/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is reduced from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 1,50,000/- and M/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is reduced from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/ Appeal allowed in part. – Appeal No. E/42019 to 42021/2017 – Final Order Nos. 41966-41968/2018 – Dated:- 10-7-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that M/s. Sri Ganapathi Marketing and M/s. Annapoorani Industries were engaged in manufacture and clearance of wet grinders in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
apoorani Industries E/42021/2017 Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Rs.5,00,000/- Sri Ganapathi Marketing 3. He submitted that the brand name Sowbaghya belonged to M/s. Raj Ganesh Enterprises for a limited period upto March 2012 and thereafter it was assigned to Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. In fact, the other units like Sri Ganapathi Marketing and Annapoorani Industries were engaged to manufacture the wet grinders with Sowbaghya brand name but they were properly instructed to conduct the manufacturing activity in a rural area. In contrast to the instruction given by the appellant, the said units started the manufacturing activity outside the rural area and therefore the demands were raised against these units. It is submitted by him that the main appellants on whom the duty demand has been confirmed that is Sri Ganapathi Marketing and Annapoorani Industries have not filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and also before the Tribunal to his knowledge. He submitted that the said unit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dealt with the goods on which duty was not discharged. Taking into consideration the facts of the situation, I am of the opinion that the penalties imposed under Rule 26 are excessive and requires interference. I hold that the penalties imposed on M/s. Raj Ganesh Enterprises in Appeal No. E/42019/2017 is reduced from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only); M/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No. E/42021/2017 is reduced from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) and M/s. Sowbaghya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No. E/42020/2017 is reduced from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). 7. The impugned order is modified to the above extent without interfering in the remaining portion of the order. The appeals are partly allowed in the above manner. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxmanagem
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =