2015 (8) TMI 1062 - SC - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - on search goods with the Brand name of others found - whether assessee is manufacturing the goods under the brand name of others - Exemption under Notification No.13/92 CE dated 14.05.1992 - tribunal had concluded that, there was no tangible evidence on record to prove the manufacture of the aforesaid branded goods by the respondents in their factory premises. It is pointed out that the goods which were recovered and seized from the two premises, belonging to the respondents, were hardly of ₹ 1,30,000/-. From that it could not be established that the respondents were manufacturing these goods i.e. under the brand names National , Omega and Philips etc. Held that - The declaration as relied upon by the revenue, nowhere mentions that the respondents are producing goods under the brand names National , Omega and Philips etc. On the contrary, it is very categorically stated in the declaration that the respondents are affixing the brand name Sunrise on all their goods - decision of tribunal sustained - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the respondents were manufacturing branded goods under brand names other than 'Sunrise' and evading excise duty.
2. Whether the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal and accept the respondents' version was justified.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the respondents, engaged in manufacturing Domestic Electrical Appliances under the brand name 'Sunrise,' being accused of manufacturing and selling goods under other brand names like 'National,' 'Omega,' and 'Philips' without paying excise duty. The Central Excise Department found branded goods during a search at their premises, leading to a show cause notice alleging duty evasion. The respondents contended that they were only a Small-Scale Industrial Unit producing goods under the 'Sunrise' brand and trading goods of other brands purchased from the market. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the duty demand, but the Tribunal overturned this decision, citing lack of evidence of manufacturing branded goods and doubts about the invoices supporting the duty demand.

2. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of tangible evidence proving the manufacturing of branded goods by the respondents in their factory premises. It highlighted the insignificant value of goods seized and questioned the genuineness of the invoices supporting the duty demand. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the declaration filed by the respondents under Rule 173B, which only mentioned manufacturing goods under the 'Sunrise' brand, not other brands. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the declaration did not support the claim that the respondents were producing goods under other brand names. The Court found no legal issue warranting consideration and dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the respondents were manufacturing and selling goods under brand names other than 'Sunrise.' The Court found no legal question requiring review and dismissed the appeals, thereby affirming the Tribunal's ruling in favor of the respondents.