ORDER : S.H. Kapadia, J. - In this case Department had given show cause notice alleging breach of Rule 173F stating that the respondent-assessee had failed to declare in its classification list that the assessee was an SSI unit using the brand name of another company by the name of 'Mapro Mahabaleshwar' for their product. When the matter came for admission in 2002 before the Division Bench of this Court following order was passed on 19.4.2002. We quote hereinbelow the said order: "It is contended by the learned Attorney General that in the order of the Commissioner it is mentioned that the classification list which was filed by the respondent never disclosed the fact of their using the brand name of another person for their product and this was with an intention to evade duty and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was available. This aspect has not been dealt with by the Tribunal which came to the conclusion that the extended period of limitation was not available. Appeal is admitted. No stay." 2. At this stage we may state that till today, despite the above order, the respondent assessee has not filed its counter affidavit. The basic issue in this case concerns breach of Rule 173-F, G(1) and H of Central Excise Rules 1944 as they stood at the material time. We quote hereinbelow the said rules: 3. Rule 173F. Assessee to determine the duty due on the goods and to remove them on payment thereof.-- Where the assessee has complied with the provisions of rules 173B, 173D, and where applicable, 173C [or 173CC], he shall himself determine his liability for the duty due on the excisable goods intended to be removed and shall not, except as otherwise expressly provided in these rules, remove such goods unless he has paid the duty so determined. 4. Rule 173G. 4. Rule 173G. Procedure to be followed by the assessee.-- (1) Every assessee shall keep an account-current with the Collector separately for each excisable goods falling under different [Chapters of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff act, 1985 (5 of 1986), in such form and manner as the Collector may require, of the duties payable on the excisable goods and in particular such account (and also the account in Form R.G.23, if the assessee is availing of the procedure prescribed in rule 173K) shall be maintained in triplicate by using indelible pencil and doublesided carbon, and the assessee shall periodically make credit in such account-current, by cash payment into the treasury [so as to keep the balance, in such account-current], sufficient to cover the duty due on the goods intended to be removed at any time; and every such assessee shall pay the duty determined by him for each consignment by debit to such account-current before removal of the goods: Provided that- (i) the duty due on the goods consumed within the factory in a continuous process may be so paid at the end of the factory day, except that in the case of cellulosic spun yarn and cotton yarn in respect of which duty is payable in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule(1) of rule 49A, the duty due may be paid by the manufacturer in accordance with the provisions of the said rule;] (ii) the proper officer may allow an assessee, who removed more than 3,000 consignments in the previous calendar year, to make a consolidated debit in the account-current at the end of the day towards payment of the duty; (iii) the proper officer may allow an assessee who manufactures one of more of the declared excisable goods, irrespective of the number of consignments removed by him in the previous calendar year, to make consolidated debit in the account-current at the end of the day towards payment of duty;] (iii)in respect of clearances of any excisable goods as samples in such small quantities as the Collector may approve in respect of any commodity and clearly marked as such on the gate pass, the assessee may pay the duty on all such samples cleared during a month by a single debit to his account-current on the last working day of the month; (iv)the Collector may, in circumstances of an exceptional nature, by an order in writing, require an assessee or class of assessees manufacturing or warehousing goods to which provisions of Chapter VII-A have been made applicable, to determine the duty and debit the account-current in such manner as may be specified by him in such order;] (v)********** [Provided further that where an assessee manufactures [or warehouses] excisable goods falling under two or more [Chapters of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and where the proper officer is one and the same for all the goods so manufactured [or warehoused], such assessee may, with the prior approval of and subject to such conditions as the Collector may specify in this behalf, maintain a single account-current for Syment of the duty due on all such goods: Provided also that where an assessee maintains separately accounts- current for each excisable goods he may, in the event of an insufficient balance in any of the accounts-current, transfer, subject to such conditions as the Collector may specify in this behalf, an amount to such account- current from another account-current which has enough balance on date of such transfer.] RULE 173H. Retention in, or bringing into, a factory or warehouse, of duty paid goods.-(1) Except as hereinafter provided, no excisable goods or parts thereof on which duty has been paid shall be brought into, or retained in, a factory or a warehouse. (2) An assssee may, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Collector, retain in, or bring into, his factory or warehouse, excisable goods or parts thereof, accompanied by duty paying documents, if such goods or parts thereof,- (a) are required for use in the manufacture of other goods in the factory; or (b) are required in the factory for construction, repairs or for use as fittings or equipment or for any other purpose for which such goods are normally consumed; or (c) need to be re-made, refined, reconditioned, repaired or subjected to any similar process in the factory; or (d) cannot be transported due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, such as, the suspension of booking on railways, non- availability of railway wagons or the breakdown of carriers; or (e) are required for test of for study of designs or methods of construction: Provided that where such goods or parts thereof are required to be brought into the factory or warehouse of an assessee for any of the purposes specified in clause (c), such goods or parts thereof shall be brought into such factory or warehouse within a period of one year form the date of their initial removal from the factory or warehouse or within the period of warranty or guarantee provided in respect of such goods by the manufacturer thereof, whichever is more: Provided further that the Collector may, on a representation being made to him in this regard, if he is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is necessary so to do, by order extend the period specified in the first proviso to such period as he may consider necessary: Provided also that in the case of goods or parts thereof which are not accompanied by duty paying documents, if the Collector is satisfied that the identity of the goods can be established by other collateral evidence, he may by order and subject to such conditions as he may impose, relax the requirement of the production of duty paying documents. (3) the goods or parts thereof (retained in, or brought into, a factory or a warehouse in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) may, if not subjected to any process amounting to manufacture, be removed from the factory or warehouse without payment of duty subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Collector.] 5. As per the show cause notice given by the Department goods came to be cleared by the respondent assessee without disclosing that the respondent which was an SSI unit was using the Logo of 'Mapro Mahabaleshwar'. They did not disclose the brand name that they were using from October 1994. In reply to the show cause notice and even before the adjudicating authority ignorance of law was the only defence pleaded by the respondent assessee. 6. They also contended that they were not aware about the legal position that they were entitled to exemption and in the circumstances after the show cause notice they have paid the duty amount as claimed by the Department. The short point is whether there was a willful default in the present case on the part of the respondent assessee. In the present case knowledge or ignorance about exemption under the Notification had nothing to do with the assessee not mentioning the contract or arrangement between respondent assessee and Mapro Mahabaleshwar. There was nothing to indicate as to under what transaction the assessee used to operate as a licensee from Mapro Mahabaleshwer. 7. There was no disclosure regarding the transaction which enabled the assessee to use the logo of 'Mapro Mahabaleshwar' on its products. No disclosure was given even in the reply to the show cause notice. Even before this Court no counter has been filed till today despite the order of this Court dated 19.4.2002. Moreover, there is no discussion even in the judgment of the Tribunal as to whether 'Mapro Mahabaleshwar' was at all entitled or eligible for exemption. 8. In the circumstances, we are of the view that CEGAT should not have interfered with the order passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case we set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. Civil appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.