2005 (6) TMI 523 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of SSI exemption to branded goods.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
4. Ownership of the brand name "M & M".
5. Interpretation of Para 4 of the notification.
6. Relevance of Board's Circular No. 52/52/94-CX.

Analysis:
1. The lower authorities demanded duty from the appellant for denying SSI exemption to branded goods removed during a specific period and imposed a penalty. The appellant appealed against this decision.

2. Despite multiple adjournments due to the appellant's non-representation, the tribunal proceeded with the case. The appellant did not contest the denial of SSI exemption to goods cleared under the brand name "M & M" during the disputed period.

3. The department invoked Para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. to deny SSI exemption to the goods cleared under the brand name "M & M" owned by Shri V.M.S. Midha. The appellant's reliance on Board's Circular No. 52/52/94-CX was deemed inapplicable by the department.

4. Shri V.M.S. Midha's statement confirmed his ownership of the brand name "M & M" due to his personal reputation in the market. The tribunal found that the brand name was associated with Shri Midha's business and reputation, making it ineligible for SSI exemption.

5. The tribunal concluded that the appellant was clearing products under a brand name owned by a person ineligible for SSI exemption, as per Para 4 of the notification. The connection between Shri V.M.S. Midha's business and the goods cleared under the brand name "M & M" rendered the SSI exemption unavailable to the appellant.

6. The tribunal referenced a circular and a Supreme Court judgment to support its decision. Citing the Apex Court's ruling in a similar case, the tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to deny SSI exemption and dismissed the appeal, sustaining the impugned order.