2004 (2) TMI 448 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal confirming confiscation of unaccounted goods and penalty imposition.
2. Denial of SSI exemption and brand name usage by the appellants.
3. Lack of tangible evidence to support the grounds for denying benefits.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was lodged by the appellants challenging the order-in-appeal that upheld the confiscation of unaccounted goods and the imposition of penalties as per Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original, which led to the appeal. The appellants, although unrepresented, submitted written submissions. Upon review, it was noted that Central Excise officers had seized raw materials and finished goods from the appellants' factory, followed by a show cause notice alleging the denial of SSI exemption due to exceeding prescribed clearance limits and the unauthorized use of the brand name "RIDER SEAL." However, the Tribunal found a lack of tangible evidence to support these allegations. There was no conclusive proof that the appellants' clearances, even with unaccounted goods added, surpassed the prescribed limits. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide substantial evidence or explanation regarding the alleged breach of the SSI exemption limit, leading to a decision in favor of the appellants.

Moreover, concerning the usage of the brand name "RIDER SEAL," the Tribunal highlighted the absence of concrete evidence indicating ownership of the brand by another entity. While goods were seized from a trading firm engaged in automobile parts, there was no indication that the proprietor or partner of that firm claimed ownership of the brand name used by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not establish a clear link between the brand name usage and any specific entity holding rights to it. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of SSI exemption based on the alleged unauthorized brand name usage lacked substantiation. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed, potentially entitling them to consequential relief as per the law.