2006 (6) TMI 443 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of SSI exemption under Notfn. No. 1/93-C.E.
2. Demand of duty and penalty based on goods cleared under another brand-name.
3. Contesting brand-name ownership.
4. Grounds of limitation for demand raised in show cause notice.
5. Invocation of extended period of limitation due to lack of registration.
6. Legal arguments based on Supreme Court judgments.
7. Prima facie case on merits.
8. Commissioner (Appeals) findings.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal considered the denial of Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993, to the assessee. The lower authorities had demanded duty of Rs. 4,09,168 and imposed an equal amount of penalty, alleging that goods were cleared under another person's brand-name. The assessee contested this finding regarding brand-name ownership.

2. The demand was also contested on the grounds of limitation as it was raised in a show cause notice dated 22-12-03 for the period 1999-2002. The extended period of limitation was invoked due to the assessee not being registered with the department. The appellant relied on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Padmini Products v. CCE [1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.)], to argue against invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) for demanding duty beyond the time limit.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged the submissions made by both sides and found that the appellants had made out a prima facie case on the ground of limitation. The show cause notice's sole reason for invoking the extended limitation period was the lack of registration with the department. It was noted that the assessee's aggregate value of clearances for each financial year during the disputed period was below the prescribed limit, making registration unnecessary.

4. Considering the relevant context, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the duty and penalty amounts. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing relief to the appellant based on the issue of limitation and lack of registration as reasons for invoking the extended period for demanding duty.