9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1055 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of brand name of other company - use of brand name Ramee Guestline Hotel on the packing material for packing cakes which belonged to another company - mis-utilization of exemption provided under Notification No. 8/2001-CE dated 01.03.2003 - HELD THAT - It is quite evident that this show cause notice is based on investigation made for earlier show cause notice for the period April 2000 to March 2005 issued to the appellant. Further, para 3 of the annexure specifically states that there is no change in products manufactured and cleared and their manufacturing and clearing procedures. The department relies on the earlier investigation conducted and records obtained during the earlier proceedings. This clearly shows that the present show cause notice which has been issued is just in continuation of the earlier show cause notice without any new facts being brought on record. The show cause notice itself makes an averment that the appellants operate under the name and style of Ramee Guestline Hotel and have cleared the goods with the brand name and logo belonging to Ramee Guestline Hotel. If that is the case, then the appellants were clearing the goods under the brand name and logo held by them - they cannot be hit by clause 3(b) of Notification No.8/2003. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods (cakes and pastries) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. Eligibility for SSI exemption under relevant notifications. 3. Demand and recovery of Central Excise duty. 4. Recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Goods: The primary issue was whether the goods, specifically cakes and pastries manufactured by the appellant, should be classified under Chapter subheading No. 19059010 (erstwhile CSH 1905.20) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had classified these goods under the said subheading, attracting Central Excise duty at the prevalent rate. This classification was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 2. Eligibility for SSI Exemption: The appellant argued that they were entitled to the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2001-CE dated 01.03.2003, which was denied by the lower authorities on the grounds that the goods bore the brand name "Ramee Guestline Hotel," belonging to another company. The appellant contended that the brand name "Ramee Guestline Hotel" was associated with their group and not an external entity. They provided various government registrations and certificates to support their claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) in an earlier order had ruled in favor of the appellant, recognizing that the brand name belonged to their group. However, the present show cause notice and subsequent orders did not bring any new facts to challenge this earlier decision. 3. Demand and Recovery of Central Excise Duty: The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 16,977/- along with Education Cess and Higher Education Cess, totaling Rs. 17,487/-. This demand was based on the allegation that the appellant had mis-utilized the SSI exemption by using the brand name of another company. The appellant argued that the earlier show cause notice for a similar issue had been decided in their favor, and no new evidence was presented in the current proceedings to justify the demand. 4. Recovery of Interest: The impugned order also directed the recovery of interest at the appropriate rate from the appellant under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contested this, arguing that the earlier favorable order should apply, and thus the interest recovery was unjustified. 5. Imposition of Penalty: A penalty of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This was based on the alleged misuse of the SSI exemption. The appellant maintained that the penalty was unwarranted as the earlier order had already concluded that the brand name belonged to their group, and there was no misuse of the exemption. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the present show cause notice was based on the same facts and investigations as the earlier show cause notice, which had been decided in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the earlier order by the Commissioner (Appeals) had specifically concluded that the brand name "Ramee Guestline Hotel" belonged to the appellant's group and not to an external entity. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the SSI exemption. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and ruling that the appellant was not liable for the demanded duty, interest, or penalty. Order: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court.
|
