2009 (7) TMI 576 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rejects Department's appeal in brand name case, stresses importance of evidence

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in two appeals brought by the Department against a ... SSI Exemption- Brand name- . The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ginning machines and its spares and the Department issued show cause notice alleging that the said machines were cleared with the brand name of third parties based on the statement of Shri Sanjay Choudhary, Manager of the firm. Original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty on the firm and on Shri Jagdish Chandra Soni, partner of the firm. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority and allowed the appeal of the firm as well as the appeal of Shri Jagdish Chandra Soni. Hence the Department is in appeal. Held that- The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear finding that it was a case of mere affixing of brand name of others in the letter head and invoices which cannot held to be clearance of goods with the brand name of others. Against this factual finding, no evidence has been cited by the Revenue. Thus there is no valid grounds to interfere with the finding and reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals).In the light of the above, we reject the appeals of the Department. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, comprising of Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President, and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T), heard two appeals from the Department arising from the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents, engaged in manufacturing ginning machines and spares, were accused by the Department of clearing machines with a third party brand name. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs.4,46,706/- along with interest and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that affixing a brand name on letterheads and invoices did not constitute clearing goods with a third party brand. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the lack of evidence presented by the Revenue to support their claims. Therefore, the appeals of the Department were rejected. This case highlights the importance of providing substantial evidence to support allegations in legal proceedings.