2010 (5) TMI 802 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal, denies Small Scale Industries exemption

COMMR. OF C. EX., JALANDHAR Versus AKAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES

COMMR. OF C. EX., JALANDHAR Versus AKAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 541 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are related to the denial of Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption benefit to the appellant due to the use of a brand name belonging to another person on the goods manufactured by them. The main issue revolves around the interpretation of the law regarding brand names and trade names in relation to SSI exemption notifications.Comprehensive Details:Issue 1: Grounds for AdjournmentThe application for adjournment was rejected by the Tribunal as no cogent ground was disclosed for unavailability of the Advocate for the respondents. The appeal related to a period from 1-6-1997 to 7-6-2002, and the Tribunal did not find it to be a fit case for adjournment.Issue 2: Challenge to Commissioner's OrderThe appellants challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15-2-2005, which dismissed their appeal against the order passed by the adjudicating authority.Issue 3: Initiation of ProceedingsThe Additional Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated based on a show cause notice dated 1st July, 2002, alleging that the respondents were manufacturing goods using a brand name belonging to another person, thereby questioning their eligibility for SSI exemption.Issue 4: Denial of SSI ExemptionThe adjudicating authority held that the respondents, despite using the brand name 'SANT' of another person on their Pipe Fittings, cannot be denied the SSI exemption benefit as the brand name ownership differed for the goods manufactured by them compared to the brand owner. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision citing relevant case law.Issue 5: Allegations of Duty EvasionThe department alleged that the respondents evaded duty by wrongly availing SSI exemption benefit while using the brand name 'SANT' belonging to another entity on their Pipe Fittings. Seized goods and manufacturing details were presented as evidence.Issue 6: Brand Name RegistrationDuring the relevant period, the brand name 'Sant' was registered in favor of the respondents, but the registered brand name was 'Sant' and not 'SANT,' which was used by the respondents. The discrepancy in brand names was highlighted.Issue 7: Disputed Interpretation of LawThe lower authorities were criticized for not considering the difference between the registered brand names and the brand name used on the goods seized. The appellant argued that the law laid down by the Apex Court was misconstrued in dismissing the appeal.Issue 8: Contrary RulingsThe Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in granting SSI exemption based on the difference in products manufactured by the respondents and the brand owner. The Apex Court's interpretation of brand names for exemption eligibility was emphasized.Issue 9: Brand Name OwnershipThe findings of the lower authorities regarding brand name ownership were deemed contrary to the facts as the brand name 'SANT' was registered in favor of another entity during the relevant period.Issue 10: Compliance with Notification TermsThe Apex Court's stance on strict compliance with notification terms for claiming benefits was highlighted, emphasizing that stretching or adding words to the notification for benefit is impermissible.Issue 11: Penalty ImpositionThe question of penalty imposition was not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal did not find it necessary to discuss the issue further due to differing views and lack of clarity during the relevant period.Issue 12: Tribunal's DecisionBased on the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and confirmed the demand specified in the show cause notice, denying the SSI exemption benefit to the appellant.Issue 13: Appeal OutcomeThe appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the demand specified in the show cause notice was confirmed, providing consequential relief to the appellant.