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 - 2003 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (3) TMI 501 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
2. Interpretation of brand name usage and factory units under the notification.

Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E.:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing 'automatic voltage stabiliser' and 'static converter battery charger, battery inverter,' under Chapter 90/85 of CETA, 1985, availed the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. However, five show cause notices alleged misuse of another manufacturer's brand name, leading to a demand of duty and penalty imposition. The appellant argued that the brand name belonged to a single legal entity with units in Kolkata and Ranchi, and no brand name was used in products from Ranchi. The aggregate value of clearances from both units did not exceed the limit specified in the notification. The Tribunal noted no revenue implication due to incorrect clearance value computation by the units, leading to the setting aside of the demand.

Interpretation of brand name usage and factory units under the notification:
The Commissioner (Appeals) found the Kolkata unit using a specific logo on products, while the Ranchi unit displayed the company's name prominently. Despite the logo belonging to the appellant and both units being part of the same company, the Commissioner denied the notification benefit due to lack of evidence supporting combined clearance value consideration. The Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing the need for verification on brand name usage and unit operations. It highlighted that if the Ranchi unit did not use any brand name or used the company's own brand name, the benefit could not be denied. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication to clarify factual positions and ensure correct application of the exemption notification.

Overall, the judgment focused on the correct interpretation of brand name usage, factory units, and aggregate clearance value under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., emphasizing the need for factual verification and adherence to notification provisions for determining entitlement to benefits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates