Tribunal denies small-scale exemption for goods with another brand name, imposes penalty

The Tribunal ruled against the respondent in the appeal filed by the Revenue, denying small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Tribunal found that the respondent manufactured goods bearing the brand name of another person, leading to the loss of the exemption. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that the exemption does not apply to goods with another person's brand name, regardless of market circulation. The impugned order was set aside, and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed, concluding the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
2. Interpretation of the provision regarding goods bearing a brand name or trade name of another person.
3. Comparison of Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
4. Impact of the decision in the case of Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. on the present case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order allowing small-scale exemption to the respondent under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Revenue contended that the exemption does not apply to goods bearing the brand name of another person, citing a Supreme Court decision. The respondent argued that they do not affix any brand name on the goods cleared by them, relying on a previous tribunal decision.

2. The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the respondent was indeed engaged in manufacturing goods bearing the brand name of another person, M/s. Rakesh Chemical Industries. The Tribunal noted the difference in provisions between Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized that the exemption does not apply to goods bearing a brand name of another person, regardless of whether the goods reach the market or are for captive consumption.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the unambiguous nature of the provision, stating that the exemption is lost if the goods bear a brand name of another person. The Supreme Court's ruling overruled a previous tribunal decision relied upon by the respondent. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the respondent was not entitled to the small-scale exemption due to the goods being cleared with the brand name of M/s. Rakesh Chemical Industries.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision. However, considering the facts and circumstances, a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed for the sake of justice. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court, bringing the matter to a close.

---