Appeal granted due to lack of evidence on brand name, highlighting distinction between raw materials and final product.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that the final product bore the disputed brand name. The judgment emphasized the distinction between procuring raw materials with a specific brand and manufacturing the final product with that brand, ultimately granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against Commissioner's order denying exemption under Central Excise Tariff for manufacturing Corrugated Polycarbonate Roofing Sheets using the brand name "LEXON" owned by another company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Exemption Denial: The appellant manufactured Corrugated Polycarbonate Roofing Sheets under Chapter Heading 39.25 of Central Excise Tariff, availing exemption under specific notifications meant for small scale units. An objection was raised during audit that the appellant was using the brand name "LEXON," owned by M/s. General Electric Company, USA, leading to the denial of exemption by the Commissioner. A substantial sum was demanded along with a penalty under Section 11AC.

2. Appellant's Submission: The appellant clarified that they procured raw materials with the "LEXON" brand as per the buyer's requirement. The brand was affixed on the cover of the raw material, not on the final product supplied by the appellant. They argued that no evidence existed to prove that the final product carried the "LEXON" brand, and there was no permission from the brand owner to use the name.

3. Commissioner's Findings: The Commissioner relied on the supplier's letter specifying the brand and quality of raw materials, concluding that the appellant manufactured the final product with the "LEXON" brand. The Commissioner imposed penalties based on this finding.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged that the brand "LEXON" belonged to M/s. General Electric Company, USA, and the raw materials were supplied by a manufacturer using this brand. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant only undertook the corrugation process and did not affix the brand on the final product. The Tribunal found no evidence that the final product carried the brand name or that there was any permission to use the brand. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that they did not manufacture their product with the "LEXON" brand.

5. Final Verdict: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that the final product bore the disputed brand name. The judgment emphasized the distinction between procuring raw materials with a specific brand and manufacturing the final product with that brand, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, findings, and the ultimate decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case concerning the denial of exemption under Central Excise Tariff for using a brand name owned by another company.

---