- (1.) Civil Appeal No. 2350 is filed against the Judgment dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'cegat') and Civil Appeal No. 406 of 2004 is filed against the Judgment dated 25th June, 2003 passed by CEGAT. Both these Appeals can be disposed off by this common Judgment as the parties are the same and the question involved is the same.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows: the Appellants are engaged in manufacture of Textile Printing Adhesives falling under chapter Heading No. 3402 of the Central excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellants were claiming benefit of Notification No. 1 of 1993 as amended and Notification No. 16 of 1997. Show-cause-notices were issued to them alleging that they were not entitled to the benefit of the Notifications as they were using the logo of "atr" belonging to one M/s. ATR St. Moritz A. G. , Switzerland. Duty and penalty was demanded from them for having suppressed the facts and non-payment of duty. The Appellants replied to the notices. However, the deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 26,74,875.75 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 26,00,000/ -. The Appellants filed an Appeal before the commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). They inter alia contended that, as suppression has been alleged, the Superintendent who had issued the show-cause-notices was not competent to issue the show-cause-notices and the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to adjudicate. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the contention that the show-cause-notices were wrongly issued and had been wrongly adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner in excess of powers vested in him by the Central board of Central Excise (for short 'board'). The commissioner (Appeals) remitted the matter back with the following directions:- "I.if the matter does not really merit invocation of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, etc. , the superfluous words may be got deleted from the subject Show Cause Notices by issuing suitable corrigenda and the matter may be re-adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority. The SSI Notification nos. may also be duly amended and substituted by Notifications in force during the periods of demand. II. If the charge of misstatement suppression of facts etc. Is to be retained, fresh Show Cause Notices may be issued in supersession of the impugned Show Cause Notices in line with the instructions contained In the two circulars referred to above. III. While re-adjudicating the matter, the appellants' contention that vide their letter dated 1.4.99, they had sent a specimen of the label to be used by them and that this specimen shows that their own brand name was more prominently displayed than the foreign brand name and that the price should be treated as cum-duty price should be examined in the light of the various CEGAT decisions available on this subject. "
(3.) Aggrieved by the directions given, the appellants filed an Appeal. CEGAT by its Order dated 19th July, 2001 held that the commissioner (Appeals) should not have remitted the matter back with the above directions and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter on merits. CEGAT also held on merits that the Appellants were not entitled to the benefits of the above mentioned Notifications as they used the brand name of another company on their products. Aggrieved by this order the Appellants have filed Civil Appeal no. 2350 of 2002.;