Appellants' Brand Name Use Deemed Manufacturing; Pre-Deposit Waived

The appellants were found to be manufacturing products under their brand name and clearing them as trading activities. Discrepancies in model numbers between imported and traded goods indicated clandestine manufacturing and clearance under the appellants' brand name. Despite the appellants' argument that affixing their brand name on fully manufactured imported goods did not constitute manufacturing, the court concluded otherwise based on the evidence presented. The appellants were directed to deposit a specific amount as a condition for hearing their appeal, with the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and penalty waived during the appeal's pendency.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants were clearing their own manufactured products under their brand name, in the guise of trading activitiesRs.
2. Whether affixing a brand name on fully manufactured imported goods amounts to manufacturingRs.
3. Whether the goods supplied to customers were actually manufactured by the appellants or cleared in the guise of trading activityRs.
4. Whether the model numbers of imported goods and traded goods were different, indicating clandestine manufacture and clearance under the appellants' brand nameRs.
5. Whether the appellants were supplying imported goods under their own brand name when no labeling of the goods was done by themRs.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing Vibrators and converters under their brand name 'Accentri'. The Revenue alleged that the appellants were clearing their manufactured products under their brand name, disguised as trading activities. The demand raised was confirmed, and a penalty was imposed. The Commissioner's order examined whether the goods supplied to customers were traded goods unconnected with manufacturing activities. The Commissioner concluded that the model numbers of imported goods and traded goods were different, indicating that the goods supplied to customers were manufactured by the appellants but cleared as trading activity.

2. The appellants argued that affixing their brand name on fully manufactured imported goods did not amount to manufacturing. However, the Commissioner found discrepancies in model numbers between imported goods and traded goods. The Commissioner's observations led to the conclusion that the goods imported by the appellants were different from the goods traded by them, suggesting clandestine manufacture and clearance under their brand name.

3. The purchase orders from customers were for the 'Accentrix' brand of converters. The appellants claimed they were importing goods and labeling them with their brand name, which they argued did not constitute manufacturing. However, a letter from another party stated that no labeling or relabeling was done on the imported goods. The discrepancy in model numbers between imported goods and traded goods raised doubts about the appellants' activities.

4. The adjudicating authority scrutinized bills of entries for imported goods and found different model numbers in traded invoices issued by the appellants. The model numbers on traded invoices matched those the appellants were manufacturing. This discrepancy in model numbers suggested that the goods imported and traded were not the same, favoring the Revenue's case. The appellants were directed to deposit a specific amount as a condition for hearing their appeal, with the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and penalty waived during the appeal's pendency.

---