SSI exemption and brand-name clearance: prima facie waiver of pre-deposit declined, with limitation plea also rejected.

SSI exemption was denied on a prima facie basis because the agreements indicated transfer of ownership in the brand names to the buyers, making the goods appear to have been cleared under another person's brand and attracting the paragraph 4 bar. On that footing, the appellant did not establish a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit or stay. The plea that the extended period could not be invoked for want of suppression was also not accepted at the stay stage, since the brand-name arrangement was said to have been disclosed only later through audit and the agreements. Partial stay relief was therefore declined and a substantial pre-deposit was required before the appeal could proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay in a dispute concerning denial of small scale industry exemption on the ground that the goods were cleared under the brand name of the buyers. (ii) Whether the plea of limitation based on absence of suppression of facts was made out at the stay stage.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay in a dispute concerning denial of small scale industry exemption on the ground that the goods were cleared under the brand name of the buyers.

Analysis: The agreements governing the transactions were treated as the controlling documents and, on a prima facie reading, they indicated transfer of ownership in the brand names to the buyers. The recital in the agreements described the buyers as bona fide owners of the brand names affixed to the goods. On that basis, the goods were regarded as having been cleared under the brand name of another person, attracting the bar contained in paragraph 4 of the SSI exemption notification.

Conclusion: The appellant did not establish a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit or stay.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of limitation based on absence of suppression of facts was made out at the stay stage.

Analysis: The fact that the goods were cleared under brand names belonging to the buyers was held not to have been disclosed to the department during the disputed period and was said to have surfaced only on audit when the agreements were furnished. On that basis, the plea against invocation of the extended period was not accepted at the prima facie stage, though financial hardship was taken into account.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was not accepted for purposes of waiver of pre-deposit.

Final Conclusion: Partial stay relief was declined and the appellant was required to make a substantial pre-deposit before the appeal could proceed.

---