2010 (12) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise

Demand and Appeal - M/s.Lal Industries used the brand name of Alpha belonging to M/s.Alpha Electronics - Evidence on record clearly establishes the clearance of branded stabilizers by the assessee - The department having made out a clear case of clearance of branded goods, the benefit of the SSI notification is admittedly not available to the assessees - Therefore, the demand and penalties are to be sustained

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand upheld by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)
- Invocation of extended period of limitation
- Levying of interest and penalty equal to duty amount
- Use of brand name belonging to another entity on manufactured goods
- Evidence based on statement of the proprietor and corroboration

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal arising from the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding a duty demand of Rs.96,985 on the appellant, Shri B.M.Saravanan, proprietor of M/s.Lal Industries, for using the brand name of Alpha, owned by M/s.Alpha Electronics, on stabilizers manufactured and cleared by them. The case was based on the statement of Shri Saravanan admitting to manufacturing and selling stabilizers affixed with the Alpha brand to M/s.Alpha Electronics, corroborated by the proprietor of Alpha Electronics, Shri T.Augustine, confirming ownership of the Alpha brand and purchasing stabilizers from Lal Industries.

During the hearing, the appellant's consultant sought to rely on the cross-examination of Shri Augustine, where he mentioned purchasing unbranded stabilizers from Lal Industries and questioned their manufacturing capacity. However, the tribunal found the evidence on record clearly establishing the clearance of branded stabilizers by the appellant. The lower appellate authority noted the voluntary nature of the statements by M/s.Lal Industries and Shri Augustine, without any retractions, leading to the conclusion that the appellant had indeed cleared branded goods, rendering them ineligible for the benefit of the SSI notification.

As a result, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, sustaining the duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant. The appeal was rejected based on the department's successful establishment of the clearance of branded goods, thereby negating the availability of the SSI notification benefits to the assessee.