2004 (6) TMI 404 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the value of clearances of goods bearing another person's brand name should be included in determining the aggregate value of clearances for small-scale exemption benefit under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed by M/s. Luxmi Steel Rolling Mills to address the issue of whether the value of clearances of goods bearing the brand name of another person should be considered when calculating the aggregate value of clearances for availing the small-scale exemption benefit under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. The duty was demanded from the appellants due to the value of clearances exceeding Rs. 3 crores in the financial year 1999-2000, making them supposedly ineligible for the exemption in the subsequent financial year. The appellants argued that the goods sold to M/s. IISCO were branded goods cleared by them without availing the exemption. The Revenue, however, contended that since M/s. IISCO did not request the appellants to use their brand name, the value of clearances should be included.

During the hearing, it was noted that the goods were indeed cleared by the appellants with the brand/monogram of IISCO, and the appellants paid full duty without availing the exemption. According to Para 3 of Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., clearances bearing another person's brand name, ineligible for exemption, should not be considered in determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption. As the appellants cleared goods bearing IISCO's brand name and paid the full duty, the value of such clearances should not be included in calculating the aggregate value. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the goods cleared with another person's brand name, and full duty paid, should not impact the determination of the aggregate value of clearances for exemption purposes.