2004 (5) TMI 342 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of benefit of full exemption from Central Excise duty to small scale units under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
2. Dispute regarding the ownership of the brand name "Amba" and its impact on duty exemption.
3. Interpretation of the term "belonging to another person" concerning brand ownership.
4. Application of Board's Circular No. 52/52/94-CX, dated 1-9-1994, in determining duty exemption eligibility.
5. Assessment of the relationship between goods bearing the same brand name but produced by different units.
6. Consideration of the distinct nature of excisable commodities for duty liability determination.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the availability of full exemption from Central Excise duty to small scale units under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The appellants had affixed the brand "Amba" on excisable goods, leading to a contention by the department that the brand belonged to a different person, making the appellants ineligible for duty exemption.

2. The primary issue revolved around the ownership of the brand name "Amba" and its impact on duty exemption eligibility. The Commissioner (A) had ruled that since each appellant declared the brand name as "Amba" in their classification list, it was deemed to belong to each of them, thus denying the exemption.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the concept of "belonging to another person" concerning brand ownership. It emphasized that ownership implies exclusive rights unless permitted otherwise. Referring to Board's Circular No. 52/52/94-CX, the Tribunal highlighted that duty exemption cannot be denied unless ownership of the brand by a specific person is proven.

4. The Tribunal scrutinized the Commissioner's reasoning and reiterated that the burden of proof regarding brand ownership lies with the department. Merely declaring goods with a brand name does not establish ownership. The Tribunal upheld that the brand "Amba" did not belong to any appellant, and the benefit of exemption should have been extended based on the Board's circular.

5. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the issue of goods bearing the same brand name but produced by different units. It rejected the argument that interrelated goods sharing a brand name would constitute the same goods for duty exemption purposes. Each excisable part must be assessed individually for duty liability or exemption eligibility.

6. Based on the observations, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. It set aside the order, allowing the appeals of the appellants with consequential relief according to the law. The appeals against the Order-in-Appeal were also allowed based on similar reasoning.