2008 (8) TMI 710 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against setting aside a demand of duty on the respondents by granting them SSI benefit under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI heard an appeal by the Revenue against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside a duty demand on the respondents by granting them SSI benefit under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The respondents did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was disposed of due to non-representation. The main contention was regarding the ownership of brandnames 'South Safe' and 'Crystal' under which goods were cleared. The lower appellate authority found that the respondents had been using the brandname 'South Safe' before the buyer-company, M/s. Southern Safety Systems Ltd., came into existence in 1995. As the buyer-company did not apply for registration of the brandname, it was held that the goods were cleared by the respondents under their own brandname, making them eligible for SSI benefit. The Tribunal upheld this finding and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.

After examining the records and hearing the JDR, the Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority's finding on the ownership of brandnames 'South Safe' and 'Crystal' was under challenge. It was established that the brandname 'South Safe' belonged to the respondents, and goods cleared under this brandname to M/s. Southern Safety Systems Ltd. were eligible for SSI benefit. The demand of duty was on goods cleared under the brandname 'Crystal' to M/s. Crystal Systems Services, which were later returned and cleared under the brandname 'South Safety'. As the brandname 'South Safe' belonged to the respondents, the duty demand on goods cleared under 'Crystal' or 'South Safe' could not be restored. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondents was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.