2002 (2) TMI 483 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of Appellant in blanket exemption case under Notification 1/93-C.E.

ESSMA WOOLLEN MILLS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-II

ESSMA WOOLLEN MILLS (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-II - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 550 (Tri. - Del.) Issues involved:Whether the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 is available to shoddy blankets manufactured by M/s. Essma Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd.Detailed Analysis:The appeal in question revolves around the eligibility of shoddy blankets for a specific exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Appellant, represented by a consultant, argued that the blankets sent for processing did not bear any brand name or label at the time of clearance. The Appellants described the blankets in challans and invoices for identification purposes but emphasized that the goods themselves did not carry any such identification marks. The Deputy Commissioner denied the exemption, citing the presence of brand names on documents like invoices and challans. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the blankets were known in the market by their respective brand names. However, the consultant argued that the goods did not carry any name or label at the time of clearance, and the exemption denial was unjustified. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal case and a decision regarding the Small Scale exemption under a similar notification.The Respondent, represented by a learned SDR, contended that the goods did not need to bear another person's brand name to be ineligible for the exemption. The arguments of both sides were considered by the Tribunal.Upon examination of the relevant Notification (No. 1/93), the Tribunal observed that the exemption would not apply to specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. It was noted that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the blankets in question bore any brand name or trade name. The denial of the exemption was solely based on the names mentioned in invoices and challans, which did not establish that the goods themselves carried any brand name. The Tribunal emphasized that merely mentioning brand names in documents was insufficient to prove that the goods bore such names. Without a direct connection between the goods and a specific brand name, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellants were not clearing goods bearing any brand name. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the interpretation of the Notification's provision regarding brand names on specified goods. The absence of concrete evidence linking the goods to a brand name led to the allowance of the appeal, as the Tribunal found that the goods in question did not bear any brand name or trade name, thus making them eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.