9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 658 - HC - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 8/2002 dated 1 March 2002 as amended by the N/N. 8/2003 dated 1 March 2003 - case of Revenue is that the exemption in the Notification could not be availed of by the Respondent as they had used the brand name of another person viz. SAMS Machine Private Limited - Held that - the label affixed on the machines contained the manufacturer i.e. the Respondents own name and has no relation to the words SAMS which belongs to M/s. SAMS Machine Private Limited - the Appellate Tribunal has arrived at a correct findings that the label on the machine clearly reveals that the machine is manufactured by the Respondents - the exemption from excise duty is admissible as the said Notification would be applicable in the facts of the present case. The Respondents are not using the branded name of another person and the name used on the label affixed on the machines was that of the Respondents themselves. The decision in the case of Commnr. of Central Excise, Pune-II Versus M/s. Pethe Brake Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (5) TMI 491 - SUPREME COURT is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to common order dated 2 November 2015 by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Applicability of Notification No. 8/2002; Use of brand name "SAMS" by the Respondent; Denial of SSI exemption; Allegations of evasion of duty; Time-barred Show Cause Notice; Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals); Rejection of Appeal by Appellate Tribunal; Interpretation of relevant Notification conditions; Reliance on Apex Court decisions. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Tribunal's Order: The Appellants contested the common order dated 2 November 2015 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which favored the Respondent. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation and application of Notification No. 8/2002, which provided SSI exemption subject to specific conditions. 2. Use of Brand Name "SAMS": The Respondent, engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical machinery, was accused of using the brand name "SAMS," belonging to another entity, on their products. This led to a Show Cause Notice being issued for denial of SSI exemption and demand of duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand, alleging suppression of facts by the Respondent. 3. Denial of SSI Exemption: The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty demand, stating that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred and the extended period was inapplicable due to the absence of willful suppression of facts by the Respondent. This decision was challenged by the Appellant, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Interpretation of Notification Conditions: The crux of the matter lay in the interpretation of the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 8/2002. Paragraph 4 of the Notification specified that the exemption would not apply to goods bearing a brand name of another person. The Appellant argued that by using the brand name "SAMS," the Respondent violated this condition, rendering them ineligible for the exemption. 5. Reliance on Apex Court Decisions: The Appellant contended that the Appellate Tribunal erred in accepting the Respondent's claim that they were not using the brand name "SAMS." Additionally, the Appellant argued that the Tribunal incorrectly relied on an Apex Court decision that was not applicable to the present case. However, the Respondent supported the Tribunal's decision. 6. Final Judgment and Apex Court Precedents: Upon review, the High Court found in favor of the Respondent, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court determined that the label on the machinery clearly indicated the manufacturer as the Respondent, not the entity owning the brand name "SAMS." The Court also cited Apex Court judgments supporting the Respondent's position, emphasizing that the case did not fall within the scope of the Notification's restrictions. 7. Conclusion: In conclusion, the High Court dismissed both Appeals, upholding the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. The Court found that the Respondent did not infringe upon the conditions of the Notification and was entitled to the SSI exemption. The judgment highlighted the importance of factual findings and the application of relevant legal precedents in resolving excise duty disputes.
|
