2011 (1) TMI 1330 - SC - Central Excise

Denial of SSI exemption (under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993) on ground that assessee is using brand name of another - case of the Revenue is that the appellants had used the brand name K belonging VKPL on the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them - Assessee has not adduced any evidence to substantiate that the logo K belonged to others - Moreover, the appellants are not shown to have used the logo K written in the peculiar design and style, embossed on the pumps manufactured by VKPL, had been embossed on pumps manufactured by the appellants.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure of the Tribunal to analyze and discuss findings recorded by the Commissioner.
2. Remitting the matter back to CESTAT for de novo consideration.

Analysis:

1. Failure of the Tribunal to analyze and discuss findings recorded by the Commissioner:
The Supreme Court noted that the Commissioner had made specific findings regarding the mark or symbol "K" being used by the company in question, as evidenced by letterheads and nameplates, along with a technology transfer agreement. However, the Court observed that the CESTAT had not provided any opinion on these crucial findings nor had it analyzed or discussed them. The Court emphasized that as a statutory authority responsible for appreciating and recording findings on facts, the Tribunal was expected to analyze and discuss the reasons behind the Commissioner's conclusions before taking a contrary view. Therefore, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order due to its failure in this regard.

2. Remitting the matter back to CESTAT for de novo consideration:
Given the failure of the Tribunal to adequately consider the Commissioner's findings, the Supreme Court decided to remit the matter back to the CESTAT for de novo consideration. The Court directed the CESTAT to reexamine the facts of the case comprehensively and make a reasoned decision based on a thorough analysis of all relevant issues. Both parties were allowed to raise any relevant issues and present their arguments before the CESTAT. The Court emphasized the importance of a considered and reasoned decision by the Tribunal after a fresh evaluation of the case. The appeal was disposed of by remitting the matter to the CESTAT, instructing it to expedite the hearing process for a prompt resolution.