2001 (1) TMI 138 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for clearances of aerated water affixed with a brand name belonging to another person who is an SSI unit eligible for exemption.
2. Interpretation of para 4 of the Notification regarding the eligibility criteria for claiming exemption.
3. Application of the decision in the case of M/s. Namtech Systems Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi to the present case.

Issue 1:
The appellants, manufacturers of aerated water, cleared goods affixed with the brand name "Citra," owned by M/s. Limca, another SSI unit eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Department sought to recover Central Excise duty, claiming the exemption was not applicable as identical goods were not manufactured by the brand name owners. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the appellants' defense, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Department's appeal. The dispute centered on whether the brand name owner's eligibility for exemption was sufficient for the appellants to claim exemption.

Issue 2:
The interpretation of para 4 of the Notification was crucial. The Revenue argued that the brand name owner must be a manufacturer of the same goods to claim exemption. However, the Tribunal noted that para 4 only required the brand name owner to be an SSI unit eligible for exemption, not necessarily engaged in manufacturing the specified goods. The Tribunal cited previous decisions supporting this interpretation and found that M/s. Limca, as an SSI unit eligible for exemption, satisfied the criteria, allowing the appellants to legitimately claim exemption for the goods in question.

Issue 3:
The Revenue relied on the decision in M/s. Namtech Systems Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, emphasizing that both the assessee and the brand name owner must be manufacturers of the same goods to qualify for exemption. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, stating that the facts of the present case did not require such a strict interpretation. The Tribunal held that the brand name owner's eligibility for exemption, not direct involvement in manufacturing, was sufficient to meet the criteria outlined in para 4 of the Notification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential benefits to the appellants. The judgment clarified that the brand name owner's eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was the key factor in determining the appellants' entitlement to claim exemption for goods affixed with the brand name, even if the brand name owner did not manufacture the specified goods directly.