2013 (12) TMI 280 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of SSI Exemption - Brand name of goods Held that - Where Mobike parts sold under own brand name and Logo of different mobike manufacturers mentioned for their identification only, it is required to be known as to which particular manufacturer of mobike they were meant for, held that use of logo/words was not such as to deny SSI exemption to the SSI - the Respondent was putting his own brand name to the goods manufactured by him - The reference to various modal of the car was only for the identification of specific use of the goods in that particular model - floor mats of the size of Zen car cannot be placed in the car of another model, which may require different specifications and seizes - for the purpose of identify the specific use, the marks of such models has to be mentioned on the goods Following Magnum Automotive Industries V/s. CCE-Noida 2003 (3) TMI 444 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI - mark of various modal on the goods manufactured by the assessee cannot be held to be covered by debarring clause of small scale exemption notification Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of brand names on manufactured goods.
2. Application of small scale exemption notification.
3. Calculation of assessable value.
4. Imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods.

Interpretation of Brand Names on Manufactured Goods:
The case involved a dispute where the respondent, engaged in manufacturing automobile rubber parts and car floor mats, used identification marks like Maruti, Zen, Santro, etc., along with their brand name Kenwood. The Revenue treated this as placing the brand names of other manufacturers and seized goods, raising a demand. The respondent clarified that these marks were for identifying the specific use of the goods in particular car models. The Tribunal, citing a previous decision, held that the use of various car model names was for specific identification and did not deny the small scale exemption. The marks were necessary to identify the specific use of the goods in different car models. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

Application of Small Scale Exemption Notification:
The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation was not invokable, and no penalty should be imposed as there was no intention to evade duty. They contended that the duty could only be demanded for one year and not thereafter. The appellant also requested the total amount charged to be treated as cum duty price, with the duty element abated for calculating the assessable value. The appellant had already deposited duty, delayed period interest, and a portion of the penalty within 30 days of the order. The appellant authority allowed the appeals based on a previous Tribunal decision, leading to the Revenue's present appeal.

Calculation of Assessable Value:
The appellant requested that the total amount charged should be considered as cum duty price, with the duty element abated for calculating the assessable value. They had already deposited a portion of the penalty along with the duty and delayed period interest within 30 days of the order. The Tribunal decision in a similar case was cited to support the appellant's argument, leading to the allowance of the appeals by the appellant authority.

Imposition of Penalty and Confiscation of Goods:
The Revenue had raised a demand, imposed a penalty, and confiscated goods based on treating the identification marks on the goods as placing the brand names of other manufacturers. However, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and upholding the decision in favor of the respondent due to the specific identification purpose of the marks on the goods.

← Previous Next →