2018 (6) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Decision Denying SSI Exemption for 'SWEP' and 'RIFOX' Goods

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision denying SSI exemption on goods with brand names 'SWEP' and 'RIFOX.' The Appellant's failure to ... SSI Exemption - Use of Brand name of others - Held that:- The Appellate Commissioner vide his order dt. 31.08.2006 had denied the SSI exemption on the goods bearing brand name ‘Rifox’ and had sent the case back to the adjudicating authority only for limited purpose i.e to compute the demand on the goods bearing said brand name. The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) denying SSI Exemption to goods bearing brand name ‘RIFOX’ was not challenged by the Appellant before CESTAT and has thus attained finality. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant should have approached the CESTAT against order-in-appeal dt. 31.08.2006. He also held that the Appellant in previous round of proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) nowhere stated that they used brand name ‘Rifox India’ and the evidence produced by them before him is afterthought - Once the Appellant chose not to file appeal against Order-in-Appeal dt. 31.08.2006 when the case was decided against them and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority only for limited purpose of recalculation of demand, they cannot challenge the merits in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) as the Order-in-appeal has attained finality. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Applicability of SSI exemption on goods bearing brand names 'SWEP' and 'RIFOX'.2. Challenge against the denial of SSI exemption.3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal process.4. Finality of previous orders on SSI exemption.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) denying the SSI exemption on goods bearing brand names 'SWEP' and 'RIFOX'. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Appellants were engaged in manufacturing 'Plate Heat Exchangers' and 'Traps' under these brand names. The adjudicating authority issued show cause notices denying the SSI exemption due to brand ownership issues. While the demand on goods with the 'SWEP' brand was dropped in a previous order, the case regarding goods with the 'RIFOX' brand was remanded back for duty calculation. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal against the demand confirmation on 'RIFOX' goods, citing the finality of the previous order on SSI exemption.2. The Appellant did not challenge the Commissioner (Appeals) order denying SSI exemption for 'RIFOX' goods before the CESTAT, leading to the finality of that decision. The Appellant later argued that they were manufacturing goods under the brand name 'RIFOX India,' not 'RIFOX.' However, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the Appellant failed to challenge the initial order, and the new evidence regarding the brand name was considered an afterthought.3. The Tribunal emphasized that since the Appellant did not appeal the initial denial of SSI exemption to the CESTAT, they could not challenge the merits of the decision before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases to support the finality of the orders and the limited scope of the appeal process once a decision has been made at a certain stage.4. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant, emphasizing the importance of challenging decisions at the appropriate stages to maintain the appeal rights and avoid issues of finality in legal proceedings.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key legal issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning behind upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in this case.