2006 (9) TMI 402 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order confirming demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and interest under Section 11AB. Interpretation of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 regarding exemption for specified goods bearing a brand name of another person.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the order confirming a demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and interest under Section 11AB. The appellant argued that the benefit available under a Board circular should not be denied to them as a manufacturer of plastic spoons with the brand name of the company to which they were supplied. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision in Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, highlighting that the circular's relevance was pending before a constitution bench. The appellant emphasized financial difficulties due to factory closure for two years.

2. The dispute revolved around the appellant's manufacturing of branded spoons claiming exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993, as a small-scale industry. However, a show-cause notice was issued as the appellant used brand names of other parties, contrary to the notification's provisions. The Supreme Court's interpretation of clause 4 of the notification emphasized strict compliance with its terms, particularly regarding goods bearing another's brand name. The Court clarified that the exemption was not applicable to goods bearing a brand/trade name of another person, irrespective of market reach or captive consumption.

3. The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court's decision overruling a Tribunal decision in Prakash Industries, emphasizing the finality and binding nature of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the notification. The Court reiterated that the exemption under the notification was only available to goods not bearing another's brand/trade name, preventing misuse by manufacturers. Consequently, the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for waiving the duty deposit, despite financial challenges and factory closure.

4. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the duty amount of Rs. 44,624 within eight weeks to secure interim stay of the penalty amount pending appeal. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal. The matter was scheduled for compliance reporting on 9th November 2006, concluding the disposal of the application.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, provides a comprehensive overview of the issues raised, the legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the interpretation of the central excise laws and relevant notifications.