2001 (5) TMI 274 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether affixing excisable goods with the brand name of another person makes the manufacturer ineligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Affixing Brand Name:
The appeal by M/s. Chopra Appliances questions the eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. due to affixing excisable goods with the brand name of another person, specifically 'A SKN Product' alongside their own brand names 'Snap' and 'Trendy'. The Deputy Commissioner imposed duty, penalty, and confiscation based on the connection implied by the brand name 'SKN' belonging to M/s. SKN Gas Appliances. The appellant argues that the small mention of 'A SKN Product' does not establish a trade connection, emphasizing they manufacture under their own brand names.

2. Interpretation of Notification and Precedents:
The appellant relies on precedents like C.C.E., Goa v. Christine Hoden (I) Pvt. Ltd. to argue that mere indication of a foreign company's name does not create a trade association. However, the Department argues that by using 'A SKN Product,' the appellant associates their goods with SKN Group, rendering them ineligible for exemption. The Department cites U.O.I. v. Paliwal Electricals (P) Ltd. to support the view that affixing an ineligible manufacturer's brand negates the exemption's purpose.

3. Extended Period of Limitation and Penalty Imposition:
The appellant contests the invocation of the extended limitation period, claiming no intent to evade duty. The Department asserts that the appellant suppressed facts by not obtaining registration, accounting goods, or paying duty, justifying the duty demand, confiscation, and penalty. The Tribunal upholds the duty demand but reduces the penalty and redemption fine considering the circumstances.

4. Final Decision:
The Tribunal finds that affixing 'A SKN Product' creates a trade connection with M/s. SKN Gas Appliances, making the appellant ineligible for duty exemption. The Tribunal upholds the duty demand due to suppressed facts but reduces the penalty and redemption fine. Ultimately, the appeal is rejected with modifications in the penalty and fine amounts.