2005 (1) TMI 478 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against orders-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of water filters, small scale exemption notification, clearance of goods without payment of duty, and confirmation of central excise duty.

Confiscation of Water Filters:
The case involved the confiscation of water filters by Revenue authorities due to non-entry in statutory records. The appellant argued that the seized filters were defective goods received back in the factory and not liable for confiscation or duty payment. However, the tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument, stating that the filters found in the factory were new manufactured filters not entered in records, leading to the confirmation of the confiscation and duty demand.

Small Scale Exemption Notification:
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the small scale exemption notification as the brand name belonged to them. The Revenue appealed this decision, citing a pending reference application in the High Court. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision supporting their claim. As there was no stay order from the High Court, the tribunal upheld the benefit granted to the appellant, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Clearance of Goods Without Payment of Duty:
The Revenue contended that the appellant cleared water filters without duty payment in violation of clearance period regulations. The appellant argued that the filters were received back due to defects and were re-cleared without duty payment under Rule 173H. However, as no permission was obtained for extension beyond the clearance period, the tribunal upheld the duty demand, finding no merit in the appellant's argument.

Confirmation of Central Excise Duty:
Regarding the confirmation of central excise duty, the tribunal noted that the appellant failed to obtain necessary permission for retaining duty-paid returned goods beyond the specified period. As a result, the demand for duty payment was deemed appropriate, and the tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal. In a related appeal by the Revenue, based on the ownership of the brand name and previous tribunal decisions, the tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals, leading to their dismissal based on the earlier decision.