Tribunal grants small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE for 'AVON' brand

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting the appellant the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE for using the brand name 'AVON'. The Tribunal rejected the argument of suppression with the intent to evade duty regarding the time limit for declarations, concluding that the appellants were eligible for the exemption as the brand name 'AVON' was used by their family partnership and no other owner was established.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE, dt.28.08.1993 is admissible to the appellant for affixing a brand name 'AVON'Rs.
2. Whether the declarations filed by the appellants were within the time limit specified under Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules and Notification No. 1/93-CE, dt.28.02.1993Rs.

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case was whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE for using the brand name 'AVON'. The lower authorities had denied the exemption, stating that the brand name belonged to another entity, M/s Wel-Tech Electronics, Jamnagar. The appellant argued that the brand name 'AVON' was used by a partnership firm of the appellant's family, citing judgments from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Delhi Bench of CESTAT. The appellant also referred to a CBEC circular clarifying that manufacturers using a brand name not owned by any person are eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal analyzed various judgments and concluded that the benefit of the exemption could not be denied to the appellants as the brand name 'AVON' was used by the family partnership, and no other owner of the brand name was established.

Issue 2:
Regarding the limitation aspect, the appellant contended that the required declarations under Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules and Notification No. 1/93-CE were filed within the specified time, making the demands time-barred. The first appellate authority had argued that the appellants did not declare the use of the brand name 'AVON' in the filed declarations, indicating suppression with the intent to evade duty. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the appellants might have genuinely believed they were eligible for the exemption as the brand name did not belong to any other person. The Tribunal also noted a CBEC circular clarifying that manufacturers using a brand name not owned by any person are eligible for the exemption. Consequently, the appeals were allowed on merit as well as on the limitation issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, granting them the benefit of the small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE for using the brand name 'AVON' and rejecting the argument of suppression with the intent to evade duty regarding the time limit for declarations.

---