2004 (12) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Gas cylinder markings for identification not brand name didn't violate duty exemption rules. Tribunal supports appellant on penalties.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision that marking gas cylinders with the company's name as per Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 did not violate Central ... Demand - SSI Exemption - Brand Name Issues:- Interpretation of Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 regarding marking of cylinders with company's name- Eligibility for Central Excise duty exemption under Notification No. 175/86, 1/93- Application of relevant case laws like Astra Pharmaceuticals Limited v. C.C.E. and Cochin Soft Drinks v. C.C.E.- Analysis of the Commissioner's order on time bar and merits of the case- Applicability of Section 11A and 11ACInterpretation of Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981:The case involved manufacturers of gases marking cylinders with their company's name as per Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. The department alleged misuse of brand name, jeopardizing Central Excise duty exemption. The Commissioner, after reviewing various judgments, concluded that marking cylinders with the company's name for identification, as per Gas Cylinder Rules, did not constitute affixing a brand name of another person. This practice was uniform in the industry and did not indicate a trade connection.Eligibility for Central Excise duty exemption:The Commissioner's order favored the assessee, ruling that the denial of Central Excise duty exemption was not justified as the markings on the cylinders did not represent a brand name. The judgment cited the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals Limited v. C.C.E. to support this decision, emphasizing that affixing the company's name did not amount to affixing a brand name.Application of relevant case laws:The judgment distinguished the present case from Cochin Soft Drinks v. C.C.E., highlighting that the markings on gas cylinders were for compliance with Gas Cylinder Rules and did not signify a brand name. The application of Section 11A and 11AC was also discussed, with the findings supporting the appellant's position.Analysis of Commissioner's order:The Commissioner's order was upheld by the Tribunal, stating that marking cylinders with the company's name, as required by Gas Cylinder Rules, did not equate to affixing a brand name. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments, affirming the legality and correctness of the Commissioner's decision.Applicability of Section 11A and 11AC:The Tribunal found the appellant's arguments regarding the applicability of Section 11A and 11AC to be valid, further supporting the decision to set aside the orders and penalties imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. The appeals were allowed in full with consequential benefits, ruling in favor of the assessee.