2024 (9) TMI 457 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 1st March 2003 - exemption to clearances from small-scale industry (SSI) units upto the threshold of the next slab of assessable value for the period from November 2012 to May 2013 - the brandname Kwality used for marketing of cakes and pastries manufactured by them did not belong to the assessee. Recovery of differential duty u/s 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 besides imposing penalty u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - period from October 2010 and March 2011. HELD THAT - The issue stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in their case 2016 (10) TMI 136 - CESTAT MUMBAI . On the last occasion, the Tribunal, taking note of the facts and circumstances, had remanded the matter back to the original authority. Thus, the impugned order is set aside - matter remanded back to the original authority for decision in accordance with the law as settled by judicial determination.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of benefit of notification exempting clearances from 'small-scale industry (SSI) units' due to brand name dispute.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the denial of benefit under a notification exempting clearances from SSI units due to a brand name dispute related to marketing 'cakes and pastries.' The appellant argued that the demand was part of a series of demands issued by central excise authorities, some of which had been adjudicated. The Tribunal had previously remanded a similar case back to the original authority. The present dispute concerned the recovery of duty, interest, and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the original authority in a previous decision.

The Tribunal considered the issue of brand name ownership in detail, citing relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It emphasized the need for a connection between the brand name, the product, and the person to deny SSI exemption. The Tribunal found that the appellant had consistently claimed ownership of the brand name 'Kwality' and that the demand was time-barred. It held that there was no suppression of facts by the appellants and set aside the penalties imposed.

Regarding the cum-duty benefit claim, the Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had already granted the benefit in one appeal and directed a reconsideration in the remaining matters. The penalties imposed on the appellants were deemed unsustainable due to differing interpretations of the law and the absence of wilful suppression of facts. The Tribunal set aside the demand and penalties, remanding all matters to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for a decision in accordance with the law as settled by judicial determination. The appeals were disposed of based on the Tribunal's observations and judgments cited, emphasizing the principles of natural justice in the de novo proceedings.