2011 (3) TMI 883 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Small scale exemption benefit - Use of others Brand name - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of gear boxes and parts falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 - They are using the brand name ADROL on the finished product which brand name belongs to them - They have only used the said brand name in the sale invoices in which case it cannot be held that the same were affixed on the goods - Therefore In the absence of any evidence to show the fixation of the said brand name on the goods no duty can be confirmed against them - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
- Small scale exemption benefit availability in case of using another company's brand name on products.
- Failure to comply with deposit conditions leading to dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:
1. Small scale exemption benefit: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing gear boxes and parts, used the brand name ADROL on their products, which belonged to them. However, during a search of their premises, invoices with the brand name TECON were found. The Revenue contended that since TECON belonged to another company, the small scale exemption benefit was not applicable, leading to a demand notice. The appellant argued that TECON was only used in invoices, not on actual goods, citing relevant Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that without evidence of TECON being affixed on goods, duty cannot be confirmed. The appellant's case was considered prima facie strong, leading to the dismissal of the pre-deposit condition.

2. Failure to comply with deposit conditions: The appellant appealed the original order, but the Commissioner (Appeals) directed a deposit as a hearing condition. As the deposit was not made, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide on merits, leading to the order being set aside. The matter was remanded for a decision on merits without requiring any pre-deposit. The Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, emphasizing the lack of evidence of TECON on goods and the need for a decision on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).