2000 (6) TMI 338 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the process undertaken by the applicant company amounts to manufacture.
2. Whether the applicant company was marketing their products under the brand name/trade name of another person.
3. Non-invocability of extended period of limitation.
4. Financial hardship of the applicants.

Analysis:

1. Manufacture Process:
The appellant argued that their process of cutting and repacking tissue rolls did not constitute manufacturing as it did not result in a new distinct product. They cited precedents where similar activities were not considered manufacturing. The appellant also highlighted that there was no specific definition in the law to classify their process as manufacturing. They emphasized that their products were sold under their brand name, and the presence of a house mark did not disqualify them from concessional duty rates. The appellant also raised the issue of the show cause notice being issued beyond the statutory limitation period, citing their genuine belief based on legal precedents.

2. Brand Name Usage:
The respondent contended that the logo used by the appellant was associated with another company, which had applied for registration of the logo. They argued that the association of the logo with the other company was significant, regardless of the products it was used for. The respondent claimed that the process of cutting and repacking tissue rolls created a distinct product with a different name, quality, or use, which was different from the original jumbo rolls. They supported their argument with a legal precedent involving a similar manufacturing process.

3. Extended Period of Limitation:
The tribunal acknowledged the debatable nature of whether the appellant's process constituted manufacturing and the issue of marketing under another brand name. However, they found a strong prima facie case for the non-invocability of the extended period of limitation. Considering this, along with the financial hardship claimed by the appellants, the tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for the duty and penalty amounts imposed on both applicants. The recovery of these amounts was stayed pending the appeal hearing.

4. Financial Hardship:
The appellant's financial hardship was a significant factor in the tribunal's decision to waive the pre-deposit requirement. The appellant provided evidence of minimal profits during a specific period, indicating that paying the duty and penalty amounts would cause undue hardship. This, combined with the prima facie case regarding the limitation period, led the tribunal to grant the waiver and stay the recovery of the amounts during the appeal process.

Overall, the tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit based on the non-invocability of the extended limitation period, the financial hardship claimed by the appellants, and the debatable nature of whether the process undertaken constituted manufacturing. The appeals were scheduled for regular hearing in the future.