2006 (10) TMI 326 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under SSI Notification due to the use of a brand name.
2. Time-bar for duty demands.
3. Entitlement to cum-duty and Modvat credit.
4. Imposition of penalty and interest.

Denial of Benefit under SSI Notification:
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal upholding the revenue's allegation regarding the use of the brand name "SAFEX" by the appellant, which was also used by another entity. The appellant argued that their belief was based on previous Tribunal judgments, but a recent apex court ruling changed the interpretation. However, the demands were for the period 1996-1998, and the appellant had applied for registration of the brand name. The appellant contended that they were not intentionally evading duty, and various judgments supported their position. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demands for the larger period.

Time-Bar for Duty Demands:
The appellant argued that the duty demand was time-barred due to their genuine belief regarding the brand name usage, supported by documentary evidence and relevant judgments. The Tribunal agreed that the demands for the larger period should be set aside, as there was no intentional suppression of facts by the appellant. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for re-computation of duty, granting the benefit of cum-duty and Modvat credit for six months.

Entitlement to Cum-Duty and Modvat Credit:
The appellant sought the benefit of cum-duty and Modvat credit, citing relevant judgments. The Tribunal ordered the re-computation of duty by granting these benefits for six months, with the matter to be re-adjudicated by the Original Authority within four months.

Imposition of Penalty and Interest:
The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties, stating that they had not deliberately suppressed any facts. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the penalty due to the appellant's genuine belief and the supportive judgments cited. The interest under section 11AB was deemed applicable only for the period after 28-9-96, and as the major demand was time-barred, interest would be for the normal limitation period. The penalty on an individual was also set aside based on conflicting decisions and established legal principles.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to re-compute duty with the benefit of cum-duty and Modvat credit, while setting aside penalties and interest for the larger period due to the appellant's genuine belief and lack of intentional suppression of facts.