Excisable goods and brand-name use bar exemption for fabricated plastic doors cleared from the factory.

Plastic doors fabricated from purchased sections and profiles, then cleared for sale and later fixed at customers' premises, remained marketable manufactured goods and were therefore excisable; later installation did not make them immovable property at the stage of removal. The use of the mark "SINTEX" on the doors, including stickers and invoices describing them as Sintex PVC doors, established use of another commercial source's brand name, so small scale industry exemption was not available. The duty demand and principal findings on excisability and brand-name use were sustained, while the penalty was set aside and the matter was modified on Modvat credit, cum-duty valuation, and quantification of duty liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plastic doors fabricated by the appellants were excisable goods; (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to small scale industry exemption notwithstanding use of the brand name "SINTEX".

Issue (i): Whether the plastic doors fabricated by the appellants were excisable goods.

Analysis: The appellants purchased plastic sections and profiles, fabricated doors at their premises by cutting and drilling, and cleared them for sale and installation. The fact that the doors were ultimately fixed at customers' premises did not make them immovable property at the stage of clearance. The record also showed sale of the product as plastic doors. The process and the nature of removal supported the finding that the goods were marketable and manufactured goods liable to excise duty.

Conclusion: The doors were held to be excisable goods, against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to small scale industry exemption notwithstanding use of the brand name "SINTEX".

Analysis: The evidence showed that the appellants used the mark "SINTEX" on the doors, and where the logo was not present they affixed stickers describing the product as Sintex PVC doors. The invoices also described the goods as Sintex doors. On these facts, the use of the brand name of another commercial source was established, and the exemption was unavailable.

Conclusion: The appellants were held not entitled to small scale industry exemption, against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the principal findings on excisability and brand-name use were sustained, while the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside and the matter was modified to the extent of Modvat credit, cum-duty valuation, and quantification of duty liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods fabricated and cleared from the manufacturer's remain excisable despite later fixation at the customer's site, and use of another's brand name on the finished product disentitles the assessee from small scale exemption.

---