Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1103 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - PVC soles for footwear - manufacture of PVC granules from old and used PVC footwear - benefit of exemption denied on the ground that the soles were bearing AIM and JUMP brand owned by someone else - Held that - The department have adduced no credible evidence to show that the soles cleared by the appellant co. were bearing AIM and JUMP brand only. As regarding claim that the said brands were owned by the family, it is found that three buyers of the appellant company, Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhatia, Sh. Sandeep Kamra and Sh. Anil Kumar Bhatia in their statements, on which heavy reliance is placed in the Show Cause Notice, had stated that they were placing orders on Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg which was executed sometimes on the invoice of M/s. Rajesh Plastics Pvt. Ltd and sometime on invoices of M/s. J. N. Footwear Pvt Ltd. Revenue have adduced no evidence to Show that the said brands had acquired such reputation so as to be identified with the persons who applied for registration - benefit of SSI Exemption was available to the appellant company - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties - Demand and recovery of Central Excise Duty along with interest and penalties - Adjudication order confirming demand of Central Excise Duty and imposition of penalties - Appeal rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Denial of SSI Exemption on PVC soles and PVC granules - Misinterpretation of statements and lack of evidence by the authorities - Legal interpretation of brand ownership and its impact on SSI Exemption - Benefit denial under Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. Confiscation of Seized Goods and Imposition of Penalties: The case involved a visit by Central Excise Officers to a footwear manufacturing unit, leading to the seizure of raw materials and finished goods valued at a significant amount. Show Cause Notices were issued proposing confiscation of seized goods, recovery of Central Excise Duty, and imposition of penalties. The Adjudication Order confirmed the duty demand, imposed penalties on the company and its directors, and allowed redemption of the seized goods upon payment of fines. Demand and Recovery of Central Excise Duty: The Adjudication Order confirmed a substantial demand of Central Excise Duty against the company and its directors, along with interest and penalties. The Appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) were rejected, upholding the Order in Original. Denial of SSI Exemption on PVC Soles and PVC Granules: The denial of SSI Exemption on PVC soles and granules was based on the usage of brand names 'AIM' and 'JUMP' owned by others, as well as the failure to meet the conditions of Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. The company contested these denials, arguing lack of credible evidence and misinterpretation of statements by the authorities. Legal Interpretation of Brand Ownership and SSI Exemption: The legal battle focused on whether the brand names used by the company were owned by related individuals and the impact of this ownership on the SSI Exemption eligibility. The appellant's counsel argued that the department failed to prove brand association and that the denial of SSI benefit was unjustified, citing relevant case law to support their position. Benefit Denial under Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-C.E.: The authorities were criticized for misinterpreting statements and lacking evidence to support the denial of benefits under Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. The appellant's counsel highlighted discrepancies in the evidence presented and successfully argued for the setting aside of the orders, allowing the appeals and granting consequential benefits to the appellants. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the final decision regarding the confiscation of seized goods, demand and recovery of Central Excise Duty, denial of SSI Exemption, and the legal interpretation of brand ownership in relation to exemption benefits.
|