2017 (3) TMI 13 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - appellant is engaged in the manufacture of stereo cassettes players/ recorders under their own brand name Royal as also under the brand name of York which belongs to another person, the York brand goods is cleared on payment of duty - Held that - admittedly the appellant s grievances about the non availability of AC s report, about non extension of small scale exemption notification and non discussion of the chart prepared by them and submitted to the original adjudicating authority is appreciable in as much as the same do not stand addressed by any of the authorities below - As such the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh calculation of demands - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged clandestine removal of goods and duty demand.
2. Small scale exemption notification benefit.
3. Calculation of duty demand based on transformers used.
4. Non-availability of Assistant Commissioner's report.
5. Non-extension of small scale exemption.
6. Discussion of the appellant's prepared chart.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was involved in manufacturing stereo cassettes players/ recorders under their brand name 'Royal' and 'York' belonging to another person. Central Excise officers conducted a search and alleged clandestine removal of goods, demanding duty of around ?34 lakhs.

2. The Appellate Authority acknowledged the appellant's ownership of 'Royal' and eligibility for the small scale exemption notification. However, the matter was remanded for recalculating duty based on transformers used for 'Royal' products. No appeal was filed against this decision.

3. Upon re-adjudication, the duty demand was confirmed at around ?14 lakhs, higher than the appellant's calculation of ?70,000. The Assistant Commissioner's report, crucial for the calculation, was not provided to the appellant. The benefit of small scale exemption was also not extended.

4. The Commissioner upheld the duty demand based on the Assistant Commissioner's report, stating that the calculation was appropriate. The appellant's contentions regarding the report's unavailability and non-extension of exemption were not addressed.

5. The appellant's appeal highlighted the failure to provide the Assistant Commissioner's report, lack of discussion on their prepared chart, and the non-extension of the small scale exemption. The Appellate Tribunal found these grievances valid, setting aside the order and remanding the matter for a fresh calculation of demands.

6. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority must address the appellant's concerns properly. The appeal was allowed by remand to ensure a fair assessment of the duty demand, considering all relevant factors and submissions made by the appellant.