2001 (9) TMI 752 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Schedule, Brand name registration for exemption under Notifications, Appropriation of cash security towards redemption fine.

Classification of Goods:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of products manufactured and cleared by the appellant under Chapter 27 or Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The department classified the goods under Chapter 38 and found them not covered under the relevant exemption Notifications. The jurisdictional Commissioner upheld this classification, leading to the appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its earlier order, upheld the classification proposed by the department, invoking the extended period of limitation for demand of duty on engine coolant. However, it disapproved the extended period for duty on other products, reduced the penalty, and remanded the matter to re-examine the SSI exemption eligibility. The Commissioner, upon remand, denied the benefit of the Notifications to the appellants, leading to the present appeal against this decision.

Brand Name Registration for Exemption:
The key issue revolved around the brand name registration under Notifications 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. for duty exemption. The appellant claimed that the brand name "NULON" belonged to them as successors-in-interest of M/s. Hitech International Pvt. Ltd. However, the evidence presented did not establish that the brand name was registered in the appellant-company's name. The Tribunal found that the brand name belonged to the Australian company during the relevant period, rendering the Notifications inapplicable. The Tribunal differentiated this case from a previous decision where the brand name was acquired and registered by the assessee, highlighting the lack of evidence in the present case for brand ownership.

Appropriation of Cash Security towards Redemption Fine:
The Commissioner's order appropriating the cash security towards the redemption fine was contested by the appellant. The appellant argued that the reduction in the value of seized goods should proportionately reduce the redemption fine, thus eliminating the need for appropriation of cash security. The Tribunal clarified that its earlier order setting aside the appropriation was in the context of remanding the dispute over the value and quantity of seized goods. Since the value was settled at a lower amount, the appropriation of cash security was deemed sustainable under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as there was no requirement for a nexus between the redemption fine and the value of goods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, rejecting the appeal based on the findings related to the classification of goods, brand name registration for exemption, and appropriation of cash security towards the redemption fine.