2004 (10) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Challenged Order Reinstated Upholding Duty Demand and SSI Exemption

The impugned order-in-appeal regarding duty demand and SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE for the period 1-4-1994 to 16-1-1997 was challenged. The ... SSI Exemption - Brand name of another person Issues:Validity of the impugned order-in-appeal regarding duty demand and SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE for the period 1-4-1994 to 16-1-1997.Analysis:1. The appeal questioned the validity of the order-in-appeal where duty demand was dropped against the respondents for the period in dispute, allowing them the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE. The Revenue contended that the respondents cleared goods under specific brand names, which was contradicted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue argued that statements of firm representatives were ignored and later-filed affidavits were wrongly relied upon without proper verification.2. The respondents' counsel argued that they were not supplied with copies of statements, affecting their response to the show cause notice. They maintained that no branded goods were supplied during the period in question and defended the acceptance of affidavits by the Commissioner (Appeals). The lack of documentary evidence supporting the non-supply of branded goods was highlighted.3. After hearing both sides and reviewing the record, it was established that the respondents were small-scale manufacturers availing SSI exemption. However, statements from various firm representatives confirmed the supply of goods under specific brand names, which was not retracted at any stage. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying on later-filed affidavits without considering the consistent statements of the representatives.4. The argument that no branded goods were supplied during the relevant period lacked documentary corroboration. The failure to provide copies of statements did not hold as the respondents had ample time to respond. The evidence proved that the respondents cleared goods under other brand names, rendering them ineligible for SSI exemption. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the original order was restored, accepting the Revenue's appeal and rejecting the respondents' cross objections.