2005 (1) TMI 465 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue contesting order-in-appeal setting aside duty demand and penalty against respondents.

In this case, the Revenue contested the correctness of the order-in-appeal where the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the order-in-original, setting aside the duty demand and penalty against the respondents. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the duty demand and penalty, alleging that the respondents were manufacturing and clearing goods under a brand name belonging to another person. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, citing that the respondents had denied affixing the brand name on the goods and that their case was similar to a precedent involving different branded goods. However, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision erroneous, as it ignored crucial evidence from a partner of the brand name owner confirming the respondents' manufacturing of branded goods. The Tribunal also noted that the precedent cited by the Commissioner had been overruled by the Apex Court, clarifying that registration of the brand name in the owner's name or manufacturing the same goods as the owner is not necessary to deny SSI exemption. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal and reinstated the adjudicating authority's decision, accepting the Revenue's appeal with consequential relief.