Appellant's Waiver Request Denied, Duty Demand Confirmed for Alleged Misuse of SSI Exemption

The appellant's request for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest, and penalty was denied. The duty demand was confirmed based on alleged misuse of SSI exemption and ownership of the brand name RIAT, which the appellant failed to prove. The appellant was directed to deposit a specified amount within a set period, failing which the pre-deposit requirement would stand, and recovery would proceed.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest, and penalty; eligibility for SSI exemption; ownership of brand name RIAT; duty evasion allegations.

Summary:
The applications were filed u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest, and penalty confirmed against the appellant company. The duty demand was based on the appellant company's alleged misuse of SSI exemption and ownership of the brand name RIAT, which belonged to another entity. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on the company and its Director. The appeals and stay applications were filed against this order.

The appellant argued that they were entitled to use the brand name RIAT as legal owners due to their association with the partnership firm owning the brand. They claimed the right to use the brand name transferred to them when they purchased the partnership firm's assets. They also contended that the duty demand was time-barred and penalties were unjustified due to lack of malafide intent.

The Departmental Representative opposed the waiver application, asserting that the brand name RIAT belonged to another entity and the appellant had not disclosed this fact while availing of the SSI exemption. They highlighted discrepancies in the appellant's use of the brand name and clearances made under different entities.

After considering the submissions and records, it was found that the appellant had not established a prima facie case in their favor. The ownership of the brand name RIAT was not proven to belong to the appellant, and there were indications of clearances being split to evade duty. The appellant was directed to deposit a specified amount towards duty demand within a set period, failing which the pre-deposit requirement would stand, and recovery would proceed.

In conclusion, the appellant's request for waiver was denied, and specific deposit instructions were provided to address the duty demand issue.

---