ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 16,35,727/- on the appellants and imposed penalty equal to duty upon them on the ground that they had wrongly availed small scale exemption under Notification 1/93 dated 28/02/1993 during the period 01/04/1994 to 30/11/1995 on headlamp assemblies, for the reason that they were affixed with the brand name ‘RAVI’ owned by another unit, namely, Patodia Glass industries Limited and were hence hit by the embargo contained in paragraph 4 of the notification above named. The extended period of limitation has been applied against the appellants as the show cause notice is dated 31/12/1996.
2. We have heard both sides.
3. On merits the appellants have no case in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the brand name ‘RAVI’ is the brand name of M/s. Patodia Glass Industries Limited and indeed has been so accepted and that the goods manufactured by the appellants herein, namely, headlamp assemblies (on which product demand has been confirmed) were identical to one of the products manufactured by the brand name owner in the light of the ratio of the larger bench decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Fine Industries 2002 (146) ELT 53, On time bar also the appellants do not have a case in view of the clear finding that the appellants declared in the classification list/declaration that they were not using the brand name of any other factory, which has been found to be a clear deliberate mis-declaration in the face of the appellants knowledge that the brand name ‘RAVI’ which they were using, belonged to M/s. Patodia Glass Industries Limited as seen from the statement of Shri M. Kumar, Works Manager. We therefore uphold the duty demand. However, penalty is set aside as it has been imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which was not on the statute book during the period of offence. Interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, is also set aside for the same reason. No argument has been advanced against confiscation of plant, machinery, etc., under the provisions of Rule 173Q, hence we uphold the same.
4. The appeal is thus partly allowed.