2017 (2) TMI 1450 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - allegation that the Diesel Generator sets were branded in the name of Mahindra Powerol which was not belonging to the appellant - HELD THAT - One of the clauses, i.e. clause-4 of the notification exempts the goods, specifically exempts the branded goods and manufactured in the rural area. The documents produced by the ld. consultant for the proposition that the factory lies in a rural area, prima-facie, seems to indicate that the claim may be correct. Since these documents were not produced before the lower authority, the factual position needs to be appreciated by the adjudicating authority. In the interest of justice the documents which are produced, needs to be considered by the adjudicating authority - Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of duty liability, penalties imposed for claiming incorrect benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, non-production of crucial documents before lower authorities, request for remand to adjudicating authority for reconsideration.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging Order-in-Original (OIO) No. 58/2011 confirming duty demands, interest, and penalties on the main appellant and an individual. The issue revolves around the appellant's manufacture of Diesel Generator sets, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE, which was deemed ineligible as the sets were branded under 'Mahindra Powerol,' not belonging to the appellant. The appellant's consultant presented various certificates during the appeal, indicating the factory's rural location to support their eligibility for the exemption under the said notification.

During the proceedings, the consultant admitted that these crucial documents were not presented before the lower authorities. The appellant sought a remand to the adjudicating authority based on these newly produced documents. However, the Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the remand, citing the appellant's failure to provide evidence during the initial proceedings. The DR relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that factual matters should not be raised at the appellate stage.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and focused on the eligibility criteria under Notification 8/2003-CE, which exempts branded goods manufactured in rural areas. The documents indicating the factory's rural location, though belatedly submitted, seemed to support the appellant's claim. The Tribunal opined that denial of benefits solely due to non-submission of documents before lower authorities would be unjust. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the DR's objection to remand and directed a reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand, allowing the adjudicating authority to reassess the issue based on the newly presented evidence regarding the factory's rural location and the eligibility for the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE.