2003 (1) TMI 588 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties based on the ownership of brand name 'Pilot' by another company and the applicability of small scale industry Notification No. 1/93.

Analysis:
1. Ownership of Brand Name 'Pilot': The dispute in this case revolves around the ownership of the brand name 'Pilot' affixed on the goods manufactured by the applicant company. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand, stating that the applicant company was not entitled to the benefit of the small scale industry Notification due to the brand name belonging to another company, M/s. Manik Machinery. The contention of the applicants was that the goods they manufactured were not identical to those of M/s. Manik Machinery. They argued that the benefit of the notification can only be denied when identical specified goods are cleared under another brand name, citing a larger bench decision in a related case. The applicants also claimed that they had disclosed ownership of the brand name 'Pilot' to the department, which was vital for determining the eligibility for the notification.

2. Debatable Prima Facie Case: The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, found that a strong prima facie case for total waiver had not been established by the applicants. While the issue of whether the goods were identical would be decided during the hearing, prima facie they appeared to be identical. The Tribunal also noted that the plea on limitation was debatable since there was no disclosure to the department regarding the ownership of the brand name 'Pilot' by M/s. Manik Machinery. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the pre-deposit of a sum towards duty within a specified period, with the balance duty and penalties being waived upon this initial deposit, and the recovery thereof stayed pending the appeals.

3. Decision and Compliance: The Tribunal directed the pre-deposit of a specific amount towards duty within 8 weeks, following which the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalties would be waived, and the recovery stayed pending the appeals. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date to ensure adherence to the Tribunal's directives.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to the ownership of the brand name 'Pilot' and the applicability of the small scale industry Notification, highlighting the need for disclosure and the determination of goods' identity. The Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of a strong prima facie case for total waiver, leading to the specified pre-deposit requirements and the stay of recovery pending the appeals.