2003 (8) TMI 92 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the excisable goods manufactured by the Respondents bear the brand name of another person.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 88/88-C.E. and subsequent amendments.
3. Extended period of limitation for demanding duty.
4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in these appeals is whether the excisable goods manufactured by the Respondents bear the brand name of another person, M/s. Corona Plus Industries Ltd. The Revenue argued that the brand name "Saving Plus" belongs to M/s. Corona Plus based on agreements and circulars. The Respondents, however, claimed ownership of the brand name for detergent powder. The Tribunal analyzed the agreements and circulars to determine the ownership of the brand name.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal considered the applicability of Notification No. 88/88-C.E. and subsequent amendments, which exempt excisable goods from payment of duty if manufactured in rural areas by specified Societies or Industries. The amendment specified that the exemption would not apply to goods bearing a brand name of another person. The Tribunal examined whether the Respondents were eligible for this exemption based on the ownership of the brand name.

Issue 3:
Regarding the extended period of limitation for demanding duty, the Revenue argued that the Respondents suppressed facts about the brand name ownership. The Tribunal reviewed the timeline of events, including searches conducted by the Department, to determine the period for which duty could be demanded. The Tribunal also assessed the liability of the Respondents based on the evidence presented.

Issue 4:
The question of imposing a penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the Secretary of the Appellants was raised. The Revenue contended that the Secretary had knowledge of the transactions. The Tribunal examined the involvement of the Secretary and the evidence presented to decide on the imposition of the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Respondents had used the brand name of another person for manufacturing goods, making them ineligible for the benefit of the exemption notification. The Tribunal also determined the duty liability based on the period under investigation and remanded the matter for further computation. The penalty issue was addressed based on the evidence presented. The appeals were disposed of with detailed reasoning provided for each issue raised in the case.