2017 (3) TMI 648 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns order, grants relief to assessee-Appellants in 'SHEETAL' brand name case

The Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal, granting relief to the assessee-Appellants in a case involving the use of the brand name 'SHEETAL' without ... SSI exemption - brand name - whether the assessee-Appellants are using brand name of ‘SHEETAL’ which belongs to M/s Aquaplast Industries Pvt. Ltd.? - Held that: - the brand name ‘SHEETAL’ was already there on the plastic container purchased from M/s Aquaplast Industries Pvt. Ltd. Hence, the assessee-Appellants cannot be considered as using the brand name of another person. M/s Aquaplast Industries Pvt. Ltd. has also given the ‘No Objection Certificate’ to use the containers in the original form with the label - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee-Appellants. Issues Involved:- Duty demand and penalty reduction for using brand name 'SHEETAL'- Entitlement for SSI benefit- Suppression of facts and invocation of extended period- Reduction of duty demand and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals)- Fabrication of steel frames and fitting of plastic container- Whether the assessee-Appellants were using the brand name of another person- No Objection Certificate to use containers with the brand nameAnalysis:Duty Demand and Penalty Reduction for Using Brand Name 'SHEETAL':The case involved appeals by the assessee-Appellants against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi. The officers found the assessee-Appellants using the brand name 'SHEETAL,' which belonged to another company. The lower authorities considered the fabrication of steel frames and fitting of plastic containers as manufacturing falling under a specific heading of CETA. This led to the denial of SSI benefit and invocation of the extended period due to the lack of excise registration. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the duty demand and penalty, which was further challenged by the assessee-Appellants.Entitlement for SSI Benefit:The Tribunal noted that the assessee-Appellants were engaged in fabricating steel frames and fitting plastic containers purchased from another company. The turnover remained below the exempted limit as the frames were fabricated for fixing the purchased containers. The Tribunal considered the nature of the activities and the turnover to assess the entitlement for SSI benefit.Suppression of Facts and Invocation of Extended Period:The case involved allegations of suppression of facts due to the non-obtaining of excise registration. The extended period was invoked based on this suppression. The Tribunal analyzed the circumstances and the reasons behind the lack of registration to determine the applicability of the extended period.Reduction of Duty Demand and Penalty by Commissioner (Appeals):The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the duty demand and penalty imposed on the assessee-Appellants. The Tribunal reviewed the grounds for this reduction and assessed the correctness of the Commissioner's decision in light of the facts and legal provisions.Fabrication of Steel Frames and Fitting of Plastic Container:The Tribunal observed that the assessee-Appellants were primarily involved in fabricating steel frames for fixing purchased plastic containers. The Tribunal examined the process of fabrication and the source of the containers to determine the manufacturing activity and its implications under the excise laws.Usage of Brand Name 'SHEETAL' of Another Person:The Tribunal considered whether the assessee-Appellants were using the brand name 'SHEETAL' of another company. It was established that the containers with the brand name were purchased from the original manufacturer, who provided a 'No Objection Certificate' for using the containers with the brand intact. The Tribunal analyzed the ownership and usage of the brand name in the manufacturing process.Conclusion:Based on the detailed analysis of the issues involved, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order in its entirety, providing relief to the assessee-Appellants. The appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants were allowed with consequential relief, highlighting the considerations of the Tribunal regarding the duty demand, penalty, SSI benefit, brand name usage, and other relevant aspects of the case.