2007 (5) TMI 39 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption Revenue contended that appellant used the brand name of another person, so as to deprive its manufacture of benefit of small scale exemption Held that machines in question were removed without brandname, so as they entitle for SSI Exemption

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for small scale exemption based on affixing brand name on machinery.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993.
- Evidence of affixing brand name on machinery.
- Comparison with similar cases and judicial pronouncements.
- Relevance of letters instructing brand name affixing.
- Tribunal's previous rulings on brand name affixing.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993 based on whether the machinery was affixed with the brand name of another person. The Commissioner's finding highlighted that the brand name was not affixed on the machines but only on the letterhead and invoices, which led to the benefit of exemption being granted to the appellant.

2. The revenue relied on a letter addressed to another party instructing the affixing of a specific brand name on the machines. However, the respondent argued that the letter was not relevant to the dispute as it was addressed to a different party and did not prove that the goods were cleared by affixing the brand name. The Tribunal emphasized that the evidence favored the respondent, indicating that the brand name was not affixed on the machines in question.

3. The learned Counsel pointed out previous rulings by the Tribunal in similar cases, such as Devendra Industries, where only machines affixed with the brand name were deemed ineligible for exemption. The Tribunal reiterated that under the notification, only machines with affixed brand names of others were ineligible for the exemption, and since the machines in this case were not affixed with any brand name, they were eligible for the exemption.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the revenue's appeals as the evidence supported the respondent's position that the brand name was not affixed on the manufactured machines. Therefore, the appeals were rejected based on the factual findings and interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's interpretation of the law, and the final decision reached based on the evidence and legal principles applied.