Appellants win appeal for SSI exemption benefit denial due to brand name change

The appellants successfully appealed against the denial of the SSI exemption notification benefit for the period from October 1999 to March 2000. The court found that the appellants had ceased using the foreign brand name 'ATR' from April 1, 1999, and provided evidence of informing the department about this change. As the appellants exceeded the SSI exemption limit even after discontinuing the use of the foreign brand name, they were deemed entitled to the exemption benefit from April 1, 1999. Consequently, the duty demand imposed on the appellants was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of benefit of SSI exemption notification from October 1999 to March 2000.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the impugned order-in-appeal concerning the denial of the SSI exemption notification benefit to the appellants for the specified period. The appellants were involved in the manufacturing of textile printing adhesives and were previously found affixing a foreign brand name 'ATR' on their products, resulting in the denial of the exemption. The appellants claimed to have stopped using the foreign brand name from April 1, 1999, and informed the department about this through a letter dated the same day. The authorities did not accept this plea initially, citing lack of evidence of the department receiving the letter. However, the appellants provided evidence, including a copy of the letter, postal receipt, and acknowledgement receipt signed by the Superintendent, proving that the information was indeed sent to the department via registered post. Consequently, the plea of the appellants regarding the non-use of the foreign brand name 'ATR' from April 1, 1999, was deemed credible.

The department did not contest that the appellants had exceeded the SSI exemption limit even after discontinuing the use of the foreign brand name. Therefore, the appellants were found entitled to the SSI exemption benefit from April 1, 1999, as they had ceased using the brand name from that date. As a result, the duty demand imposed on the appellants was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed with consequential relief as per the law. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court on March 10, 2005.

---