1998 (1) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Manufacturing ceiling fan covers under concessional rates - Interpretation of brand name usage for duty payment - Dismissal of correspondence as fabrication - Embossing of brand name on covers - Application of clarifications to earlier notifications - Re-determination of duty payment by Asstt. Collector.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants manufacturing ceiling fan covers under concessional rates and supplying them to a company within the Jay Engineering Group. A show cause notice was issued, demanding differential duty payment due to the brand name 'Usha' being embossed on the covers, not entitled to the notification benefit. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand, upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the current appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the brand name 'Usha' was added only from March 1988 at the buyers' insistence, challenging the demand for the prior period. The Asstt. Collector dismissed the claim as fabricated without proper evidence, alleging all covers bore the brand name since October 1987. The counsel contended the embossing was only on top covers, not on bottom covers, thus overstating the duty demand. Referring to a circular, the counsel argued for the benefit of the clarification applying to the case and cited a precedent requiring reference back on such issues.

The department's representative supported the Collector's decision, asserting that clarifications for later notifications might not apply to earlier ones. The Tribunal considered the arguments, noting the lack of substantiation in the Asstt. Collector's rejection of the claim regarding the brand name embossing commencement date. The Tribunal directed a re-determination by the Asstt. Collector to ascertain the exact date of embossing initiation and verify if it was limited to top covers only. The Tribunal also emphasized the applicability of clarifications to earlier notifications with similar provisions, instructing the Asstt. Collector to consider the cited circular for the re-determination process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the lower orders and remanded the proceedings to the Asstt. Collector for a fresh determination, directing a thorough examination of the embossing date and brand name usage on the covers, along with considering the clarificatory circular's relevance to the case.