Tribunal grants appeal delay, denies waiver of dues due to brand ownership, directs deposit.

The Tribunal allowed the condonation of a nine-day delay in filing appeals due to reasons provided by the applicant. However, the waiver of pre-deposit of dues totaling Rs. 48.07 lakhs was denied as the goods were manufactured under brand names owned by different entities, making the small scale exemption notification inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized that benefits are not available if goods are manufactured under brand names of others, and directed a deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs within eight weeks, with recovery stayed pending compliance and reporting by a specified date, considering the applicant's financial hardship.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, waiver of pre-deposit of dues, small scale exemption notification benefit denial based on brand name ownership.

Delay in filing appeals:
The applicant filed applications to condone a nine-day delay in filing the appeals, which was allowed by the Tribunal due to the reasons explained by the applicant.

Waiver of pre-deposit of dues:
The applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of total duty, interest, and penalties amounting to Rs.48.07 lakhs. The Revenue denied the benefit of small scale exemption notification, claiming that the goods were manufactured under brand names owned by different entities. The applicant argued that as the brand name was registered under related entities, they were entitled to use it. However, the Tribunal found that the benefit of the notification is not available when goods are manufactured with the registered brand name of others. As the brand names were registered under different entities, the waiver was not granted entirely.

Small scale exemption notification benefit denial based on brand name ownership:
The Tribunal noted that the benefit of the small scale exemption notification was being denied to the applicant, a Private Limited Company, as the brand names in question were registered under different entities. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit is not available if goods are manufactured with the brand name of others. The applicant failed to provide legal documents proving the right to succeed in the trade name owned by the related entities. Considering the financial hardship claimed by the applicant, a deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs was directed within eight weeks, with the waiver of pre-deposit granted upon compliance, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.

This judgment highlights the importance of ownership and registration of brand names in determining eligibility for benefits under small scale exemption notifications in excise matters. The Tribunal's decision underscores the need for proper documentation to establish rights over brand names and the consideration of financial hardship in determining the deposit amount and waiver of pre-deposit.

---