2005 (12) TMI 127 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of small scale exemption under Board's Circular 52/52/94-CX, ownership of unregistered brand name, misdeclaration affecting limitation period for demand.

In this case, two units operated by two brothers used the same unregistered brand name and claimed small scale exemption independently. The respondents relied on Board's Circular 52/52/94-CX, arguing that if a brand name is not owned by a specific person, another person using the same is entitled to the exemption. However, the learned SDR contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) found one unit to be the owner of the brand name, even though it was not registered. This finding was not challenged by the respondents, making the allowance of exemption to the second unit contradictory and legally questionable.

The Tribunal agreed with the SDR's submissions, emphasizing that if one unit was recognized as the brand name owner, the second unit using the same name could not claim the small scale exemption. The respondents' argument of limitation due to a common Range Officer's knowledge of both units using the brand name was countered by the SDR, highlighting a misdeclaration in the classification list by the units, which prevented the demand from being time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that the demand was valid and not limited by time due to the misdeclaration made by the respondents to avail the exemption.

Based on the above findings, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority to recalculate the duty and penalty in line with the Tribunal's conclusions. The department's appeal was allowed through remand, providing a clear direction for further proceedings in the case.