2001 (2) TMI 176 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of goods
2. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 1/93
3. Time bar for raising demand

Valuation of Goods:
The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal regarding the valuation of goods, citing the Larger Bench case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. & Others v. CCE Madras. The Tribunal found the decision in line with the Larger Bench ruling, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

Denial of Exemption under Notification No. 1/93:
The appellant claimed small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for manufacturing shoes bearing brand names "Air Power" and "Flash." However, authorities deemed the shoes bearing the brand name "Flash" ineligible for exemption due to it belonging to a group concern of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the brand name "Flash" was associated with another manufacturer, M/s. Vijay Polymers, making the appellant ineligible for the exemption under the amended Notification No. 1/93. Citing the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption based on the use of another person's brand name on the goods.

Time Bar for Raising Demand:
The assessee argued against the extended period for raising the demand, claiming no intent to evade duty as they had previously declared the use of the brand name "Flash." However, the Tribunal observed that the omission of mentioning the brand name in the Classification Lists coincided with the amendment in law disqualifying goods bearing another person's brand name for exemption. This led the Revenue Authorities to conclude that the omission was intentional to evade duty, as the crucial fact was omitted once it became a determining factor for dutiability or exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention regarding the time bar.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no error or illegality in the impugned orders, confirming the denial of exemption and upholding the decision on valuation of goods. Both the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee were rejected based on the detailed analysis provided for each issue involved.