2008 (1) TMI 235 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant was clearing rigid PVC pipes and fittings with brand name Gprecision claiming it as his own - denial of the SSI exemption claimed by them under Notification No. 8/98-C.E & Notification No. 8/99 on ground that said brand name was also being used by some other firms - appellant was under bona fide belief that they are true owners of the said brand name Gprecision - as such the extended period of limitation is not invokable against them under the provisions of Sec. 11A(1) of CEA

Issues:
1. Invocation of extended period of time against the appellant for clearance made during 1998-1999 to 1999-2000.
2. Eligibility of the appellant to avail benefit of SSI exemption on the brand name "Gprecision."
3. Requirement of declaring the use of brand names during the relevant period.
4. Interpretation of the provisions of Rule 173B regarding declaration of brand names.
5. Application of the principle of intentional suppression of facts to evade duty.
6. Bona fide belief of the appellant in claiming benefit under SSI Notification.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the invocation of the extended period of time against the appellant for clearances made during 1998-1999 to 1999-2000. The Tribunal considered the appellant's contention that they were under a bona fide belief of eligibility for the SSI exemption due to their application for registration of the brand name "Gprecision." The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, setting aside the impugned order invoking the extended period under the provisions of Sec. 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.

2. The issue of eligibility of the appellant to avail the benefit of SSI exemption on the brand name "Gprecision" was crucial. The appellant argued that they had always indicated to the authorities that they were clearing the products with this brand name and had applied for registration of the trademark. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's bona fide belief in their eligibility for the SSI exemption based on the evidence presented, including the application for registration and subsequent communication from the trademark authorities.

3. The requirement of declaring the use of brand names during the relevant period was debated. The revenue contended that the appellant had not declared the use of the brand name on their clearances, leading to a suppression of facts. However, the appellant argued that non-declaration of the brand name of another person in the classification list itself should not be a basis for invoking the extended period of time. The Tribunal considered these arguments and ruled in favor of the appellant.

4. The interpretation of the provisions of Rule 173B regarding the declaration of brand names was discussed. The revenue argued that the appellant should have declared the use of brand names as required by the rule. However, the appellant's counsel relied on previous Tribunal rulings to support their case, emphasizing that the non-declaration of the brand name should not lead to the invocation of the extended period of time.

5. The principle of intentional suppression of facts to evade duty was raised by the revenue. They cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument that non-disclosure of the use of a brand name enabling the appellant to derive benefits would apply in this case. The appellant countered this argument by highlighting a specific paragraph from a judgment that supported their position.

6. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was under a bona fide belief that they were the true owners of the brand name "Gprecision" and thus cleared the goods availing the benefit of the SSI Notifications. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case, ultimately allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

← Previous Next →