2016 (12) TMI 991 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - whether the main appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption N/N. 175/96 or otherwise? - Held that - the first appellate authority has clearly recorded that the gearboxes were dispatched from the appellant s premises without nameplate - there was no brand name affixed on the gearboxes when they were cleared from his factory premises - the main appellant has correctly availed the benefit of N/N. 175/86 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of central excise duty laws regarding the manufacture of excisable goods bearing a brand name on behalf of another company.
- Application of exemption notification 175/1986-CE.
- Burden of proof on the department in cases of alleged suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of central excise duty laws:
The case involved a dispute regarding the manufacture of excisable goods bearing the brand name "CUSA" on behalf of another company. The show-cause notice sought to recover central excise duty from the manufacturer. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. However, the appellants denied affixing the brand name on the gearboxes in their factory. The appellate authority remanded the case for fresh proceedings due to the lack of a speaking order. The subsequent order confirmed the demand against the manufacturer and imposed penalties, alleging the affixing of the brand name. The appellants argued that the brand name was affixed by another person after collecting the goods from the factory, and the department failed to prove otherwise. The tribunal found that the gearboxes were dispatched without the brand name affixed at the factory, thus upholding the appellants' claim.

2. Application of exemption notification 175/1986-CE:
The main issue revolved around whether the manufacturer was eligible for the benefit of exemption under notification 175/1986-CE. The department alleged that the gearboxes were affixed with the brand name "CUSA" at the factory, while the manufacturer contended that the affixing was done by an employee of another company at a different location. The first appellate authority noted that the gearboxes were dispatched without the brand name affixed, which was not contested by the revenue. The tribunal, after considering the findings and statements, concluded that the manufacturer correctly availed the benefit of the exemption notification, as there was no evidence to the contrary.

3. Burden of proof in cases of alleged suppression of facts:
Since the demand was raised by invoking the extended period of limitation alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, the burden of proof was on the department. The department relied on circumstantial evidence and the practice of another job worker to sustain the demand. However, the tribunal found that the department failed to discharge the onus of proof, as no concrete evidence was presented linking the manufacturer to the alleged act of affixing the brand name. The tribunal highlighted the importance of admissible evidence and the lack of findings or allegations against the other company regarding exemption eligibility.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, as the department failed to prove the allegations against the manufacturer regarding the affixing of the brand name on the goods in question.