2007 (5) TMI 534 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Departmental appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Small scale exemption entitlement for goods manufactured under brand name COMET - Limitation for demand - Wilful suppression or misdeclaration - Valid grounds for interference with Commissioner (Appeals) findings.

Analysis:

The case involves a Departmental appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the entitlement to small scale exemption for goods manufactured under the brand name COMET. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand on the ground of limitation, considering the respondent's declaration under Rule 173B. The respondent had clearly stated in the declaration that they produced branded goods under their own brand name and under the brand name of M/s. Comet Oil Corporation, Ireland, which indicated that they were not entitled to small scale exemption for goods manufactured with the brand name COMET.

The key point of contention was whether the respondent had committed wilful suppression or misdeclaration, warranting the invocation of an extended time limit for the demand. The appellant argued that the respondent's declaration clearly indicated the use of the M/s. Comet Oil Corporation Ltd.'s brand name, demonstrating that there was no intentional suppression or misdeclaration on the part of the appellant-company.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Department had failed to provide any valid grounds to challenge the reasonings and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's declaration and the attached relevant labels sufficiently established the fact that goods were manufactured under the brand name of M/s. Comet Oil Corporation Ltd., justifying the rejection of the Department's appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, ruling in favor of the respondent and rejecting the Department's appeal. The case highlights the importance of accurate declarations and the significance of conclusive evidence in determining liability for duty exemption, especially concerning the use of brand names in manufacturing goods.