9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 274 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit - Stay petition - SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. - Brand name or Trade name of other - Appellant manufacture various types of electric insulators - under heading 8546 of the Central Excise Tariff - Order placed by M/s. TDPL on the appellant for supply of ceramic insulators - the insulators were to strictly confirm to ISI specifications IS-731/1971. M/s. TDPL had obtained ISI certification in respect of the goods - For ISI certification it is necessary that the goods must be affixed with the brand name or trade name Held that - Prima facie view that the words TDPL affixed on the goods have to be treated as a brand name of M/s. TDPL and since this brand name does not belong to the appellant the appellant would not be eligible for SSI exemption. Following the decision in case of AVADH POLYTUBES (P) LTD. (2010 (11) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) that the goods would have to be treated as bearing brand name or trade name of another person and would not be eligible for SSI exemption. Direct ot deposit pre-deposit and amount dues.
Issues:
1. Eligibility for SSI exemption on ceramic insulators affixed with a brand name. 2. Interpretation of brand name or trade name under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. 3. Applicability of SSI exemption in cases of goods affixed with another person's brand name. 4. Justification for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 5. Consideration of limitation period for duty demand. Issue 1: Eligibility for SSI exemption on ceramic insulators affixed with a brand name: The appellant manufactured electric insulators availing SSI exemption but affixed them with the brand name "TDPL" for supply to M/s. TDPL. The Commissioner held "TDPL" as the brand name of M/s. TDPL, denying SSI exemption. The appellant argued that "TDPL" was merely the customer's name, not a brand/trade name. Citing precedents, they contended that affixing customer names does not disqualify SSI exemption. However, the Tribunal viewed "TDPL" as a brand name indicating a trade connection, aligning with precedents where goods bearing customer names were denied SSI exemption. Issue 2: Interpretation of brand name or trade name under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E.: The Tribunal analyzed the definition of brand name or trade name under Explanation (A) of Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. It noted that a brand name can be a name connecting goods with a person in trade. Considering this definition, the Tribunal concluded that "TDPL" on the insulators indicated a trade connection with M/s. TDPL, justifying the denial of SSI exemption. Issue 3: Applicability of SSI exemption in cases of goods affixed with another person's brand name: The Tribunal referred to precedents like Avadh Polytubes (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, where goods bearing another person's brand name were ineligible for SSI exemption. Applying similar reasoning, the Tribunal found that the insulators affixed with "TDPL" were not eligible for SSI exemption due to the brand name belonging to M/s. TDPL. Issue 4: Justification for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act: The Commissioner imposed a penalty under Section 11AC on the appellant for duty demand confirmation. The Departmental Representative supported this penalty invoking the longer limitation period due to alleged non-disclosure by the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, considering the brand name issue and non-disclosure, aligning with the Commissioner's decision. Issue 5: Consideration of limitation period for duty demand: The Tribunal acknowledged the limitation issue as a mixed question of fact and law for final hearing. However, it directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within six weeks, considering the denial of SSI exemption and the eligibility for input duty credit. This deposit would waive the pre-deposit requirement for the balance amount pending appeal disposal. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the Tribunal's decisions regarding the eligibility for SSI exemption on ceramic insulators affixed with a brand name and related penalty imposition under the Central Excise Act.
|
