2003 (2) TMI 305 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Demand of duty and penalty imposition against the appellant.
- Denial of small scale exemption benefit based on the use of brand name.
- Interpretation of the notification regarding the requirement of goods bearing a brand name.

Analysis:

1. Demand of Duty and Penalty Imposition:
The judgment addresses the confirmation of duty amounting to Rs. 34,64,164 against the appellant, along with the imposition of penalties under various provisions. It is noted that penalties were imposed on both the appellant and a partner of the company under different rules. The appellant contested the denial of small scale exemption benefit, leading to the present appeal.

2. Denial of Small Scale Exemption Benefit:
The impugned order denied the appellant the benefit of small scale exemption based on the assertion that the goods manufactured by the appellant were using the brand name of another company, which was contested by the appellant. The appellant argued that the use of the expression 'TISCOG' in their records and invoices was not a brand name but merely indicated that the goods were made according to the specifications of another company. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that using a brand name in invoices without affixing it on goods does not warrant denial of the small scale exemption.

3. Interpretation of Notification Requirement:
The Commissioner's order was based on the belief that the goods in question were manufactured as per the specifications of another company, leading to the denial of the exemption notification. However, the Tribunal found that the goods did not bear the brand name of the other company, as 'TISCOG' was not the brand name of the company in question and was not affixed on the manufactured goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods must bear the brand name of another person for the exemption to be denied, and mere mention in invoices is not sufficient. Reference was made to a previous case where it was held that mentioning a brand name in invoices/challans does not equate to the goods bearing that brand name.

4. Final Decision:
Since there was no evidence to suggest that 'TISCOG' was the brand name of the company or affixed on the goods, the Tribunal found no justification for confirming the demand of duty against the appellant. Consequently, the demand of duty was set aside, and both appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The stay petitions were also disposed of in favor of the appellants.