2017 (5) TMI 1018 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 8/99-CE - denial of benefit of N/N. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 on the ground that the black and White TV which is final product manufactured by the appellant is exempted from payment of duty and these TV cabinets have been captively consumed by the appellants which are dutiable - Held that - As the adjudicating authority has not examined the issue on the basis of existing law or existing N/N. 8/99-CE dated 29.2.1999. Therefore, impugned order is contrary to the law - matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication to examine the issue in terms of N/N. 8/99-CE dated 29.2.1999 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against denial of SSI exemption benefit.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of the benefit of SSI exemption in the impugned order. The case involved the appellant manufacturing branded plastic cabinets of TV sets for use in the manufacture of black and white TV sets of different brands. The issue arose when it was found that while the final product, black and white TVs, was exempt from duty, the plastic TV cabinets used in their production were dutiable. The appellant was denied SSI exemption under Notification 67/95-CE and Notification No.8/99-CE due to the captive consumption of these cabinets. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the denial of SSI exemption, confirmation of duty, interest imposition, and penalty. The appellants challenged this decision, leading to the current appeal.

During the proceedings, the adjudicating authority observed that the appellant was manufacturing branded goods of other brands and using their brand names in the production process. The authority referenced the definition of brand name or trade name, which included any mark, code number, or design number used in connection with specified goods. However, the appellate tribunal found this observation to be contrary to Notification No.8/99-CE dated 29.2.1999. The tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the issue in light of the existing law and notification, leading to a decision contrary to the law. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with Notification No.8/99-CE and relevant judicial pronouncements.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the direction to the adjudicating authority to re-examine the issue in light of the correct notification and legal provisions, providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.