2018 (3) TMI 496 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - brand name - clearance of goods by the appellant bearing brand name of Diamond Gold and Decotech - The department s case is that these brand names did not belong to the appellant and hence any goods bearing such brand name will not be entitled to benefit of SSI exemption - Held that - The deed of assignment itself is the disputed aspect in the present case. If the deed of assignment is taken into account, it appears that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit. But before such a conclusion can be arrived at, it is necessary to verify the amendment to the original deed which has not been done by the original adjudicating authority - the matter needs to go back to the original authority to verify these deeds and then to arrive at revised conclusion. Demand which has been made on the basis of 42 loose slips which were recovered during the course of investigation of the goods. Since we remand the matter, this aspect may be re-examined by the original authority and revised orders passed after extending the opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assignment of trade marks and SSI exemption denial.
2. Quantification of goods cleared based on MRP.
3. Allegations of clandestine clearance.

Analysis:

1. Assignment of Trade Marks and SSI Exemption Denial:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing under brand names 'Diamond Gold' and 'Decotech,' faced SSI exemption denial due to trade mark assignment issues. The original owner assigned the brand names to the appellant, but the department disputed the assignment's validity. The appellant claimed lawful entitlement to use the brand names on an All India basis through amended assignment deeds, not submitted in time. The Tribunal noted the need for original authority verification of the amendment to the assignment deed. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal directed a remand for verification of the deeds to determine SSI exemption eligibility.

2. Quantification of Goods Cleared Based on MRP:
The department quantified goods cleared by the appellant on MRP basis under Section 4A, requesting the price list. The appellant's partial submission led to inflated demand. The Tribunal remanded the matter, instructing the adjudicating authority to allow the appellant to submit a detailed price list and amended assignment deed for verification before passing denovo orders.

3. Allegations of Clandestine Clearance:
Allegations of clandestine clearance based on recovered loose slips were made against the appellant. Statements and lack of timely submission of assignment deeds raised concerns. The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-examination, directing the original authority to reconsider the issue and pass revised orders after providing the appellant with a hearing opportunity.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for thorough verification and reconsideration, allowing the appeals by way of remand. The detailed analysis highlights the complexities surrounding trade mark assignment, SSI exemption, quantification issues, and clandestine clearance allegations, emphasizing the need for proper verification and submissions before reaching a final decision.