2010 (2) TMI 616 - AT - Central Excise

Unbranded Vegetable Oil - exemption under the Notification No. 06/2003-C.E - enquiries were conducted by the Revenue from several customers of the Appellant, and the customers stated that the goods were received under the invoices where Brand name was mentioned - Held that - assessee not entitled for exemption under the Notification No. 06/2003-C.E - Appellant is liable to duty and consequential penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 11AC of the Act - Appeal is disposed off

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand duty and penalty imposition on Branded Vanaspati under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant contested the demand duty of Rs. 37,80,246.00 and penalty imposed for clearing Branded Vanaspati under the guise of Unbranded Vanaspati post the levy of duty w.e.f. 1-3-2003. The Appellant argued that a portion of the goods was manufactured before the duty introduction and hence not liable for duty payment. Citing the decision in CCE v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd., the Appellant claimed exemption for the goods manufactured prior to the levy. Additionally, the Appellant asserted that the Unbranded Vegetable Oil cleared after 1-3-2003 was exempted under Notification No. 06/2003-C.E. The Appellant emphasized the Revenue's burden to prove the goods were branded, referencing legal precedents like Bhushan Kumar v. CCE, Ludhiana.

2. The Revenue's stance was based on inquiries from customers indicating receipt of goods with the 'SHIVA' brand mark before and after the duty levy. The Revenue argued that since the Appellant continued manufacturing branded goods post-duty introduction, the demand was justified. However, the Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's argument that goods manufactured before the levy date were exempt from duty, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Vazir Sultan case. The Tribunal noted specific quantities of Branded Vegetable Oil manufactured pre-levy, leading to the setting aside of the demand and penalty imposed on those quantities.

3. Regarding the remaining duty, the Tribunal considered statements from various customers confirming receipt of goods marked with the 'SHIVA' brand. Despite Appellant's reliance on legal precedents like Bhushan Kumar and Valan Beedi Works cases, the Tribunal differentiated the present case due to evidence from customers linking the goods to the 'SHIVA' brand. Consequently, the Tribunal held the Appellant liable for duty and consequential penalty on the remaining demand due to the evidence of manufacturing and clearance of branded goods without duty payment.

4. The judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned order on specific quantities of Branded Vegetable Oil manufactured before the duty levy and exempting the Appellant from the demand and penalty related to those quantities. The remaining demand, supported by customer statements confirming the branded goods, led to the Appellant being held liable for duty and consequential penalty. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, along with the cross objection filed by the Revenue.