2013 (11) TMI 691 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Logo and brand name did not used but the name of the manufacturer - Denial of Small Scale Exemption Exemption under Notification No. 08/2003 Assessee Manufactured Scented Chewing Tobacco Held that - Following Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Mahaan Dairies 2004 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - When goods are sold using only the name of the manufacturing company, this would not disentitle an assessee from claiming small-scale exemption Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing miscellaneous petitions.
2. Denial of small-scale exemption for using a brand name.
3. Interpretation of statutory requirements for indicating manufacturer's name.
4. Applicability of small-scale exemption based on the manufacturer's name.
5. Dismissal of Revenue's appeal by the apex court.

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing miscellaneous petitions:
The tribunal considered two miscellaneous petitions filed by the appellant for condonation of delay. The applications were initially allowed but not specifically disposed of. Later, the tribunal deemed these applications as infructuous after hearing both sides.

Issue 2: Denial of small-scale exemption for using a brand name:
The appellants were manufacturing 'Scented Chewing Tobacco' and claimed exemption for small-scale units. The Revenue denied the exemption, stating that using the name 'A.R.R.' on the products amounted to using a brand name belonging to another company. The tribunal found that the appellants had transitioned from using the registered logo to indicating the name 'A.R.R. Enterprises' on the packages. The tribunal noted that the practice adopted by the appellants was an attempt to gain an unfair advantage, violating the conditions of the exemption notification.

Issue 3: Interpretation of statutory requirements for indicating manufacturer's name:
The tribunal examined the statutory requirement of indicating the manufacturer's name on the labels. It was established that indicating the name 'A.R.R. Enterprises' as the manufacturer did not constitute the use of a brand name, as it was a statutory requirement and did not disentitle the appellants from claiming small-scale exemption.

Issue 4: Applicability of small-scale exemption based on the manufacturer's name:
The tribunal referenced previous orders and a Supreme Court decision to support the appellants' entitlement to small-scale exemption based on the manufacturer's name 'A.R.R. Enterprises.' The tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, emphasizing that the matter had already been upheld by the apex court.

Issue 5: Dismissal of Revenue's appeal by the apex court:
The Revenue had appealed the tribunal's decision in the apex court, which was dismissed. The tribunal considered this dismissal as the matter no longer being 'res integra' and proceeded to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals filed by the appellants, thereby disposing of two miscellaneous petitions and two stay petitions.

This judgment dealt with various issues, including the denial of small-scale exemption, interpretation of statutory requirements, and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the apex court. The tribunal ultimately upheld the appellants' entitlement to the exemption based on the manufacturer's name, emphasizing compliance with statutory regulations and previous legal precedents.