2003 (6) TMI 420 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules against SSI benefit due to brand name discrepancy, imposes Rs. 5 lakh penalty

ARIES INTERNATIONAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

ARIES INTERNATIONAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 207 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Whether excisable goods manufactured by the appellant are bearing the brand name of another person, making them ineligible for the benefit of SSI Notification.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of M/s. Aries International to avail of the SSI Notification benefit due to the brand name used on their manufactured goods. The appellant contended that their brand name was 'Aries SUPERGRIP' and not just 'Aries.' They argued that no evidence proved that the brand name 'Aries SUPERGRIP' belonged to another person, emphasizing that the brand names commonly known in the trade were 'Aries' or 'Aries SUPERGRIP.' Reference was made to a previous case to support the argument that different brand names could qualify for the SSI exemption.In response, the Senior Departmental Representative asserted that the brand name used by the appellant was indeed 'Aries,' as evidenced by product photographs. They highlighted the distinct style and separation of the words 'Aries' and 'SUPERGRIP' on the goods, suggesting that 'SUPERGRIP' denoted the quality of the machine and the appellant's telegraphic address. The representative argued that the extended period of limitation was applicable due to misdeclaration in the appellant's filing, where they declared their brand name as 'Aries SUPERGRIP' in 1999, contrary to the actual brand name being 'Aries.'Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence presented, the Tribunal found merit in the Departmental Representative's argument. It was established that the appellant used the brand name 'Aries' with its zodiac sign on the products, rather than 'Aries SUPERGRIP' as claimed. As per the SSI Notification, goods bearing the brand name of another person were ineligible for the exemption, leading to the denial of the benefit to the appellant. The Tribunal agreed that the extended period for demanding duty applied due to the misdeclaration of the brand name. Consequently, the demand for duty was upheld, but the imposition of a penalty equivalent to the duty amount was deemed unnecessary. Instead, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was directed to be paid by the appellant, ensuring justice without excessive punitive measures. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.