2015 (4) TMI 930 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of SSI exemption Notification No 9/2003-CE dtd 1.3.2003 - assessee cleared their products Zip Fasteners bearing brand name of MIG, GVM and TLR belonging to M/s Madura Coats Pvt Ltd to their own central depot - Held that - Assessee manufactured and cleared Zip fasteners with sliders bearing the brand /trade name MIG, GUN, TLR belonging to Madura Coats Pvt Ltd. - it is clearly evident from the record that the appellant cleared Zip fasteners with sliders, which were bearing the brand /trade name of Madura Coats Pvt Ltd. Para 4 of SSI exemption notification No 9/2003 provides that the exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person. So, it is to be considered as to whether the goods were cleared by the assessee bearing any brand name of other person. - in the earlier SSI exemption Notification No. 175/86, 1/93 it was specifically mentioned where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name , which are absent in the present SSI exemption notification. Admittedly, the assessee had cleared the specified goods bearing brand name of other person. - case of Kohinoor Plastics Ltd (2005 (8) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) would squarely apply in the present case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the Ld Advocate. - There is no material available of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. So, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the penalty. - there is no reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of exemption on manufacturing and clearance of Zip Fasteners with sliders bearing the brand name of another company.
2. Interpretation of the notification regarding the exemption clause.
3. Setting aside of penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the admissibility of exemption on manufacturing and clearance of Zip Fasteners with sliders bearing the brand name of another company. The appellant argued that they did not affix any brand name on the finished goods as the sliders were supplied by the other company. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant cleared goods bearing the brand name of another person, which was in violation of the exemption notification. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in a similar case to support its conclusion, emphasizing that the exemption is lost if the goods bear the brand/trade name of another, regardless of who affixed the name.

2. The interpretation of the notification regarding the exemption clause was crucial in this case. The Tribunal noted that the exemption notification clearly stated that it shall not apply to specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name of another person. The Tribunal highlighted the difference between the current notification and earlier ones, where specific mention was made about manufacturers affixing brand names. As the appellant had cleared goods bearing the brand name of another person, the Tribunal found that the exemption did not apply, and previous case laws cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant.

3. Regarding the setting aside of penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's findings that the issue primarily revolved around the interpretation of the notification. Since there was no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty payment, the Commissioner's decision to set aside the penalty was upheld. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order, and both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision regarding the admissibility of exemption, interpreted the notification clause, and supported the setting aside of penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the lack of evidence of intentional evasion.