2005 (6) TMI 127 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against demand of duty based on denial of SSI exemption due to use of brand name registered by another party; Contesting demand on grounds of different products usage and limitation period.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges a duty demand due to denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The denial was based on the appellant using a brand name registered by another party on Dish Antenna, leading to ineligibility for exemption. The Tribunal noted that the textile company owning the brand was not entitled to the exemption, affirming the denial.

2. The appellants contested the demand on two grounds. Firstly, they argued that since the textile company used the brand on different products, para 7 of the Notification shouldn't apply to them using it on Dish Antenna. Secondly, they claimed the demand was time-barred. The appellant cited case law and a Board's Circular, while the DR supported the adjudicating authority's findings and cited Supreme Court decisions.

3. After considering submissions, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's case. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, it clarified that a small-scale manufacturer using another's brand name not entitled to SSI benefit is ineligible for exemption, regardless of the goods' similarity. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments and upheld the denial of exemption.

4. A portion of the demand was based on value addition, including erection and commissioning charges. The Tribunal ruled this addition was against apex court precedent, leading to the rejection of this part of the demand.

5. Regarding the limitation issue, the appellant argued that the extended period was wrongly invoked due to non-disclosure of brand name usage. Citing a Tribunal decision upheld by the apex court, the appellant claimed a bona fide belief in entitlement to SSI exemption despite brand name use. The Tribunal analyzed the allegations in the show cause notice and concluded that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, rendering the demand time-barred and penalty unsustainable.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand as time-barred, vacating the penalty accordingly. The appeal was allowed, and no penalty was upheld against the appellants.