Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1418 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of SSI Exemption under Notification No.1/93 – Brand name not own by the person using it – Held that:- If a brand name is not owned by any particular person, the use will not deprive a unit of the benefit of the small scale exemption scheme - This applies not only to locks but to all other goods specified in Notification No. 1/93 - the brand name ‘AVON’ is being used by the partnership concerns of the same family - It has not been established by the investigation that the brand name ‘AVON’ belongs to any other person – Relying upon CCE Vs Minimax Industries [2011 (1) TMI 782 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and on CBEC Circular No. 52/52/94-CX, dt.01.09.1994 - when the brand name does not belong to any person, then the manufacturers using such brand name are eligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93. Time barred demand – Held that:- The appellants filed suitable declarations under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules and Notification No.1/93-CE, dt.28.02.1993 - It cannot be held that there was any suppression on the part of the appellants with intention to evade duty - The reason given by the first appellate authority that appellants did not declare the use of brand name ‘AVON’ in the declaration filed with the Department amounts to suppression with intention to evade duty, is not correct because the appellants can be under bonafide belief that the brand name ‘AVON’ did not belong to any other person and that they were eligible to small scale exemption – thus, it cannot be considered that the appellants suppressed any information with intention to evade Central Excise duty – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|