Brand name use and sham clearances denied small scale exemption; retrospective penalty under Section 11AC was barred.

Clearances recorded in the name of M/s. Kunal Engineers were treated as clearances of M/s. Devendra Industries because the record showed no independent factory, machinery or materials with Kunal Engineers, and the panchnama and partner's statement were not displaced. The brand name "UDP" was found to belong to another concern and to have been affixed on 25 ginning machines, so small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was denied only to that extent. Penalty under Section 11AC was held inapplicable to clearances made before its commencement, while penalty under Rule 209A was sustainable against the partners. Duty and penalties were remitted for fresh quantification on the limited findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the clearances shown in the name of M/s. Kunal Engineers were in the name of M/s. Devendra Industries; (ii) whether the appellants affixed the brand name 'UDP' belonging to another person so as to deny small scale exemption; and (iii) whether penalty could be imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances shown in the name of M/s. Kunal Engineers were in fact clearances of M/s. Devendra Industries.

Analysis: The Panchnama and the statement of the partner recorded at the time of visit were relied upon to show that M/s. Kunal Engineers had no independent factory, machinery or material to manufacture the goods in question. The registration certificate and attendance register by themselves did not establish actual manufacture by that concern, and no satisfactory material was produced to displace the Panchnama or to show that Kunal Engineers independently manufactured the ginning machines.

Conclusion: The clearances shown in the name of M/s. Kunal Engineers were rightly treated as clearances of M/s. Devendra Industries.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants affixed the brand name 'UDP' belonging to another person so as to deny small scale exemption.

Analysis: The statement of the partner of U.D. Patel & Co. and the contemporaneous letters showed that 'UDP' referred to that concern and that plates bearing the mark were sent with directions to fit them on the machines. The appellants did not establish that the plates were affixed only after delivery at destination. At the same time, the evidence did not establish use of the mark on all machines; the record supported affixation on only 25 machines.

Conclusion: The brand name 'UDP' of another person was held to have been affixed on 25 ginning machines, and the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was denied only to that extent.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty could be imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 11AC was held inapplicable for clearances made before the provision came into force. The partners were found to have been looking after production and sales, supporting penalty under Rule 209A. The matter therefore required fresh quantification in light of the limited findings on duty and penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC could not be imposed for the pre-commencement period, while penalty under Rule 209A was sustainable against the partners.

Final Conclusion: The duty liability and penalties required re-computation in accordance with the limited findings recorded, and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on quantification.

Ratio Decidendi: Small scale exemption is unavailable where goods are cleared under the brand name of another person, and a penalty provision cannot be applied retrospectively to clearances made before its commencement.

---