2003 (1) TMI 444 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the benefit of small scale exemption notification is available to the goods manufactured by M/s. Keramos.

Analysis:
In the three appeals, the main issue was whether the small scale exemption notification applied to the goods manufactured by M/s. Keramos. The appellant's advocate argued that they were engaged in printing and decorating glazed tiles purchased from other manufacturers, emphasizing that they did not manufacture the tiles themselves. The process involved various steps like cutting tiles, creating designs, and printing with ceramic color paste. The appellant's products were customer-specific, with the brand name KERAMOS affixed on every packing. The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the small scale exemption, stating that the printed tiles bore other brand names and were cleared in original packings of other manufacturers, citing a previous Tribunal decision.

The appellant contended that their customers did not specify the original manufacturers of the tiles, and they used glazed tiles as raw material for their printed decorative tiles. They argued that they did not affix other brand names on the goods manufactured by them and referred to a Board's Circular to support their claim. The appellant distinguished their case from a previous decision involving job workers for tile manufacturers. They also cited other Tribunal decisions to support their position.

The Respondent argued that the appellants could have put their own brand name on the tiles but failed to do so. They claimed that the tiles bore the brand names of original manufacturers even after printing and decoration. The Respondent referenced a Board's Circular related to job workers and contended that the previous Tribunal decision on brand names applied to the current case. They argued that the facts were different from a previous decision involving HDPE sacks.

After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the printed tiles did not bear any specific brand name after the process undertaken by the appellants. The Revenue failed to prove that the goods sold by the appellants bore another person's brand name. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the previous decision involving job work for another company. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the benefit of the small scale exemption could not be denied as the goods manufactured by them did not bear another person's brand name. The impugned order was set aside, and all appeals were allowed.