Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2002 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2002 (12) TMI 304 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Classification of goods under Notification 1/93 for exemption claim under CETA, 1985.

Analysis:
The case involved the classification of goods under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, for claiming exemption under Notification 1/93, dated 28-2-1993. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued proposing denial of exemption to the manufacturers of packing/sealing machines and weighing scales for using the brand name 'Philips' belonging to another person. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, which was challenged by the manufacturers. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, holding that to deny the exemption, it must be established that the brand name used belongs to another person and is used for indicating a connection in the course of trade. The Revenue appealed this decision.

The key issue before the Tribunal was whether the bar contained in paragraph 4 of Notification 1/93-CE applies only when the brand name of another person is used on identical goods or on any goods by an SSI unit. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Larger Bench in CCE, Chandigarh v. Fine Industries & Ors. and the Apex Court decision in UOI v. Paliwal Electricals (P) Ltd. to resolve this issue. The Tribunal emphasized that the brand name/trade name used should indicate a connection in the course of trade between the specified goods and some person using such name or mark. Explanation IX and X of the notification clarified that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to show that the goods bearing another person's brand name were actually manufactured by that person.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal held that the manufacturers were entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification 1/93. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeals by the Revenue were rejected. The cross-objections were disposed of accordingly. The decision was made following the precedent set by the Apex Court and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the notification to determine the eligibility for exemption under the specified conditions.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates