1999 (2) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Notification 175/86 benefit for using foreign companies' expressions on goods.
2. Availability of Notification benefit based on Tribunal decisions.
3. Contention regarding goods not being fully manufactured and calibration process.
4. Imposition of penalty on appellants without specific reasons.
5. Final decision and relief granted in the appeals.

Issue 1: Denial of Notification 175/86 benefit
The appellant, a manufacturer of counting and measuring instruments under license from foreign companies, faced a notice from the department denying the benefit of Notification 175/86. The department argued that using expressions like "under license Samson-West Germany" amounted to displaying the brand or trade name of foreign entities not entitled to the notification. The notice also proposed confiscation of instruments and penalties on the appellants. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, ordered confiscation, and imposed penalties, leading to the appeals.

Issue 2: Availability of Notification benefit
The Tribunal examined previous decisions, particularly Weigand India P. Ltd. v. C.C.E., where it was held that affixing a name plate indicating technical collaboration did not establish a relationship with collaborating companies as using their brand name. The absence of foreign collaborators' brand names on the products supported the appellant's claim for Notification benefit, as the references to collaboration did not constitute brand name usage.

Issue 3: Goods not fully manufactured
A contention was raised regarding the goods' calibration and marking requirements for proper functioning. The Collector's decision was based on a panchnama indicating the goods were fully manufactured, but the lack of detailed evidence to challenge this finding led the Tribunal to uphold the Collector's decision. The redemption fine imposed was deemed appropriate considering the offense and goods' value.

Issue 4: Imposition of penalty
No specific reasons were provided for imposing penalties on two appellants, seemingly linked to incorrect availability of the Notification benefit. The Tribunal set aside these penalties, finding them unjustified. While the penalty on the main appellant could be related to record-keeping failures, it was deemed unnecessary alongside the redemption fine post goods' confiscation, leading to the penalty's removal.

Issue 5: Final decision and relief
Appeal E/4642/94 was partially allowed, while the other two appeals were fully granted. The Tribunal provided consequential relief as deemed necessary, concluding the case with a mixed outcome for the appellants based on the issues raised and analyzed during the proceedings.