2004 (5) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fit of full exemption from Central Excise duty to small scale units under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 1-3-1993. The appellants had affixed a brand "Amba", on the excisable goods. As a result of goods bearing the brand name, the departmental authorities proceeded to hold that the said brand "Amba" belongs to a person, other than the appellants and hence are ineligible for duty exemption. The appellants had pleaded that their case is covered by the instructions contained in Board's Circular No. 52/52/94-CX, dated 1-9-1994. It was claimed that, the goods cleared with the brand name by each of the units are not the same, but are quite different. It was also pleaded that, the brand "Amba" does not belong to any particular person, and can b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a particular person, the exemption cannot be denied. The Commissioner (Appeals) tried to overcome this requirement of proving the ownership by stating that, each of the appellants had declared in the classification list that the goods bear the brand name "Amba". We note that, the declaration that the goods are affixed with a brand name "Amba" cannot mean, as has been made out by the lower authorities that the brand belongs to each of them. We hold that, when the appellants are contesting the liability on the ground that the brand "Amba" does not belong to anyone, the burden is on the department to establish as to who the owner of the brand is, rather than saying that, each of the appellants owns the brand, which the appellants deny. Based ....