Tribunal directs appellants to deposit 50% duty demand within 8 weeks, waiving pre-deposit if complied. Lack of evidence denies waiver.

The Tribunal directed both appellants, M/s. Gobind Expeller Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shri Guru Nanak Dev Engineers, to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty demand within eight weeks. Compliance would result in waiving the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining amount, interest, and penalty, with recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal. The decision highlighted the lack of evidence supporting joint ownership of the brand name "Anand," leading to the denial of waiver from pre-deposit requirements. The order was pronounced on 23.10.2012.

---

---

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of SSI exemption for manufacturing units using the same brand name.

Summary:
The case involved M/s. Gobind Expeller Company Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Shri Guru Nanak Dev Engineers, and M/s. Gobind Expeller Co. Pvt. Ltd. facing a show cause notice for non-payment of duty and penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner confirmed duty demands and penalties, stating that the brand name "Anand" belonged to Shri Jagtar Singh, rendering the appellants ineligible for SSI exemption.

The appellants argued that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between Jagtar Singh and his sons Gurpreet Singh and Arminder Singh established joint ownership of the brand name "Anand," citing legal precedents supporting their claim. However, the MOU was not presented during the investigation or mentioned in the proceedings before the Commissioner, weakening the appellants' case.

Considering the facts, the Tribunal directed both appellants to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty demand within eight weeks. Upon compliance, the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining amount, interest, and penalty would be waived, and recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal.

The decision emphasized the lack of evidence supporting joint ownership of the brand name, leading to the denial of waiver from pre-deposit requirements for the appellants. Compliance was mandated by a specified date, with the order pronounced on 23.10.2012.

---