2015 (5) TMI 974 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant granted exemptions under SSI-related notifications, penalties not imposed

The appellant was denied the benefit of exemption under notification no. 12/94 for a specific period due to increased power load. However, they were ... Benefit of exemption under notification no. 12/94 dated 1/3/1994 - SSI exemption - Clubbing of clearances - Held that:- Appellant has installed boilers in the year 1994 and requested to Rajasthan State Electricity Board to increase the power load from 16HP to 63HP and the same has been sanctioned and power load has been increased with effect from 24/1/1995. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of notification no. 12/94 for the period from 24/1/1995 to 31/03/1996. As the appellant has already installed boilers in the year, 1994 itself, the claim of the appellant is that they started using the power with effect from 01/04/1996, to support this contention, the appellant has failed to produce any corroborative evidence to substantiate their claim. Therefore, benefit of notification no. 12/1994 Central Excise dated 1/3/1994 is not available to the appellant for the period from 24/1/1995 to 31/03/1996. SSI Exemption - appellant are using of this trademark since, 1987 and are the owner of the trademark. Therefore, the appellant are entitled for benefit of exemption under notification as SSI Unit as they are not using the brand name of any other person. The only reason for clubbing the clearance of Washwell Soap Private Limited to the main appellant s clearance is that the proprietor of main appellant is one of the Directors in Washwell but no other investigation was done to ascertain the fact that there is mutuality of interest between both the units and the price charged by the main appellant from Washwell Soap are lower than the price charge from other person as Revenue has not investigated these facts. Therefore, merely being the proprietor is the Director of M/s. Washwell, the clearance of Washwell cannot be clubbed with the clearance of the appellant. - demand on this account is not sustainable and the same is set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues involved:1. Entitlement to benefit of exemption under notification no. 12/94 dated 1/3/19942. Entitlement to benefit of notification relating to SSI exemption limits3. Clubbing of clearance of M/s. Washwell with the clearance of the appellantDetailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to benefit of exemption under notification no. 12/94 dated 1/3/1994:The appellant claimed exemption under this notification for manufacturing goods without the aid of power. However, the power load was increased from 16HP to 63HP on 24/1/1995, indicating the use of power. The appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the claim of using power only from 01/04/1996. Consequently, the benefit of this exemption was denied for the period from 24/1/1995 to 31/03/1996.2. Entitlement to benefit of notification relating to SSI exemption limits:The denial of exemption under notifications for SSI units was based on the appellant allegedly using the brand name of another entity. The Revenue claimed that the brand name 'Washwell' belonged to M/s. Washwell Soap Private Limited Bhilwara. However, the appellant presented evidence, including a trademark registration application from 1987, proving their ownership of the brand name. As the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence, the appellant was deemed entitled to the exemption as an SSI Unit.3. Clubbing of clearance of M/s. Washwell with the clearance of the appellant:The clubbing of clearance was contested on the grounds of the proprietor of the main appellant being a director of M/s. Washwell. However, no investigation was conducted to establish mutual interest or pricing relationships between the two entities. As a result, the clearance of M/s. Washwell could not be combined with that of the appellant. The demand based on this clubbing was deemed unsustainable and set aside.In conclusion, the judgment ruled that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of notification no. 12/1994 for a specific period, but was entitled to exemptions under various notifications for a subsequent period. Additionally, the clearance of M/s. Washwell could not be clubbed with the appellant's clearance. Consequently, the demands for penalties were also considered unsustainable and were not imposed. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.