2010 (2) TMI 441 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Show cause notices were issued proposing to deny the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that the goods were affixed with brand name like SONY etc. which do not belong to them. The lower adjudicating authority has dropped the case relying upon the Order of the Additional Commissioner on an identical issue. No bar on revenue to file appeal when earlier order accepted but appeal to show defect in earlier order and reason for change in stand. Held that - no grounds furnished on defects of earlier order except stating observation on merits not given. Appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Orders-In-Original dropping demand.
- Allegation of concealing original brand name on imported goods.
- Denial of SSI exemption due to brand name affixed.
- Appeal by Revenue against lower adjudicating authority's decision.
- Requirement for Revenue to show grounds for appeal against earlier order.
- Consideration of merits and reasons for change of stance by Revenue.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves three cases where the department filed appeals against Orders-In-Original by the lower adjudicating authority dropping the demand. The cases concern imported kits with allegedly concealed original brand names and affixed local brand stickers to deny SSI exemption.

2. The respondent in all cases assembled the kits with stickers concealing the original brand names, leading to show cause notices proposing denial of SSI exemption. The lower authority dropped the case based on an earlier order of the Additional Commissioner, prompting the appeal by the Revenue.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that non-appeal against the Additional Commissioner's order does not preclude filing an appeal later. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the DR sought a remand for fresh decision as the Commissioner (Appeals) did not pass any order on merits.

4. The parties' counsels opposed the DR's contention, highlighting the lower authority's reliance on the Additional Commissioner's decision and the lack of merit in the appeals. They noted the department's selective demand only on seized goods and the absence of substantial grounds for appeal.

5. The Tribunal found the Revenue's appeals lacking merit as they failed to demonstrate what was wrong with the earlier order or the reasons for the change in stance. Merely alleging lack of observations on merit by lower authorities was insufficient. Without showing the earlier order's merits, the Revenue's appeal was deemed unsubstantiated, leading to their rejection.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's reasoning for rejecting the Revenue's appeals.