1997 (2) TMI 248 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 1/93 for exemption eligibility based on brand name ownership.

Detailed Analysis:

The case involved a stay application filed in reference to an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding the manufacturing of "Aerated waters" under the brand name "Citra." The Revenue argued that the brand name "Citra" was owned by M/s. Limca Flavours & Fragrances Ltd., making the goods ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93 if affixed with another person's brand name not eligible for small scale exemption.

The applicants contended that M/s. Limca Flavour & Fragrance Ltd. were themselves eligible for small scale exemption, as certified by the Superintendent. They cited legal precedents to support their argument, including cases from the Madras High Court and other authorities, to establish that ownership of the brand name did not disqualify the goods from exemption eligibility.

On the other hand, the Revenue argued that M/s. Limca Flavour & Fragrance Ltd. did not manufacture aerated waters, thereby making them ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellants affixed the aerated water with the "Citra" brand name owned by M/s. Limca Flavour & Fragrance Ltd., who did not manufacture "Citra," leading to a question of their eligibility for exemption not arising.

The Tribunal determined that the crucial aspect was to assess whether the brand name affixed on the goods belonged to a person eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93. It emphasized that the Notification did not require the brand name to be in respect of similar or identical goods. The Tribunal concluded that the matter needed to be remanded to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for a fresh decision on whether M/s. Limca Flavour & Fragrance Ltd. were eligible for exemption under the Notification, thereby impacting the liability of the appellants to pay duty.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the case for a de novo decision by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), allowing the appellants to present additional evidence to support their case and be heard in person during the proceedings.