2014 (6) TMI 953 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement to SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/2003-C.E. - extended period of limitation invoked - Held that - This Tribunal held it is the case of joint ownership brand Ravi Masale by the family members and each of the family member could use the brand name on the products manufactured by them and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, holding that the assessee is entitled to SSI exemption. The logo of Jain Group and the words Jain Pipe do not belong to any particular company or manufacturer. Further, the respondents have used the words JAIN PIPE - JPPL , which identifies the goods with them only in particular. There is no categorical finding nor claim by any other manufacturer as to ownership of JAIN PIPE , brand name. We further hold that under the facts and circumstances, there being regular disclosures to the Revenue by the appellant, no case of suppression of facts or contumacious conduct is made out. Hence, extended period of limitation is not attracted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/2003-C.E.
2. Use of brand name "JAIN PIPE" and its implications.
3. Alleged violation of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. conditions.
4. Limitation period for issuing the show cause notice.
5. Imposition of penalties and confiscation provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/2003-C.E.:
The core issue was whether the respondent, a manufacturer of PVC pipes and fittings, was entitled to the Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Notification No. 1/2003-C.E. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the Order-in-Original and held that the assessee was entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the words "JAIN PIPE" used by the respondent could not be construed as a brand name of another person, thus qualifying them for the SSI exemption.

2. Use of brand name "JAIN PIPE" and its implications:
The Revenue contended that the respondent used the brand name "JAIN PIPE," which belonged to another company, thus violating the conditions of the SSI exemption notification. The Tribunal found that "JAIN PIPE" was not a registered brand name and was used by multiple companies within the Jain Group. The Tribunal concluded that the use of "JAIN PIPE" did not indicate a connection to a single manufacturer and thus did not constitute the use of another's brand name.

3. Alleged violation of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. conditions:
The Revenue argued that the respondent violated the conditions of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. by using another's brand name. The Tribunal held that the logo and the words "JAIN PIPE" were not exclusive to any single company and were used by multiple entities within the Jain Group. Therefore, the use of these identifiers did not disqualify the respondent from the SSI exemption.

4. Limitation period for issuing the show cause notice:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the show cause notice was time-barred. The period in question was April 1996 to October 1998, and the show cause notice was issued on 16-3-2000. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression of facts or contumacious conduct by the respondent, thus ruling that the extended period of limitation was not applicable.

5. Imposition of penalties and confiscation provisions:
The Order-in-Original had imposed penalties and proposed the confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery. The Tribunal, however, found no basis for these penalties as the demand itself was not sustainable. Consequently, the penalties and confiscation provisions were set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upheld the entitlement of the respondent to the SSI exemption, and ruled that the use of "JAIN PIPE" did not violate the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal also found that the show cause notice was time-barred and set aside the penalties and confiscation provisions. The respondents were entitled to consequential benefits.