2015 (9) TMI 1318 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of SSI Exemption - Notification No. 8/2002-CE - Whether the respondent is correct in paying full Central Excise duty in respect of PD Pumps on the ground that these were with the brand name of another person - Held that - Revenues view is that the value of PD Pumps are also to be added to arrive at the SSI exemption limit. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) examined in detail these issues and arrived at the categorical conclusion that the brand name Kalsi used by the respondent for PD Pumps belongs to M/s Kalsi Metal Works, Jallandhar only and that being the case no SSI exemption is applicable in respect of such goods. There is no evidence on record to show that the brand name Kalsi for PD Pumps and spares thereof belonged to the respondent. Regarding classification for sales tax purpose, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also given his finding discounting the Revenues view. As such, we find no reason to disagree with the findings of the lower Appellate Authority - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the respondent correctly paid full Central Excise duty for PD Pumps with another person's brand name.
2. Whether the value of PD Pumps with the brand name of another person should be included in the aggregate turnover for SSI exemption.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue challenged an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the respondent, a manufacturer of agricultural implements and PD Pumps, availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-CE. The Revenue contended that all goods cleared by the respondent, including those with another person's brand name, should be considered for the aggregate value calculation. The original authority confirmed the demand and penalty, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, stating that goods cleared with another person's brand name and full duty payment should not be included in the aggregate value. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence that the brand name used by the respondent belonged to them, and dismissed the appeal.

2. The main point of contention was whether the respondent correctly paid full Central Excise duty for PD Pumps under another person's brand name, Kalsi. The Tribunal noted that the brand name Kalsi belonged to M/s Kalsi Metal Works, Jallandhar, and not to the respondent. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that no SSI exemption applied to goods with the brand name of another person. Additionally, the Tribunal found no evidence supporting the ownership of the brand name Kalsi for PD Pumps by the respondent. The lower Appellate Authority's findings were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of agreement or understanding with the brand name owner and the absence of orders from the brand name owner for the branded products.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and conclusions reached by the Tribunal in the case.