2004 (6) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of SSI benefit for using brand name of others.
2. Requirement of pre-deposit of balance duty amount and penalty.
3. Consideration of waiver request based on pre-deposit made.
4. Legal implications of non-compliance with the order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of SSI benefit for using brand name of others
The appellants pre-deposited a partial amount of the total duty demand but were denied the SSI benefit due to the alleged use of another brand name. The appellants argued that the show cause notice did not specify whose brand name was used and who owned it, making the order legally flawed. The appellants contended that since they used the brand name on a job work basis, the brand belonged to them, not the principal supplier of raw material.

Issue 2: Requirement of pre-deposit of balance duty amount and penalty
The Revenue, represented by the DR, argued that the use of the principal supplier's brand name was sufficient reason to deny the benefit, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal found that a detailed examination of the matter based on evidence was necessary during the final hearing. The appellants were directed to pre-deposit the balance disputed duty amount within a specified timeframe, with the waiver of the penalty amount upon such deposit, and recovery stayed pending appeal disposal.

Issue 3: Consideration of waiver request based on pre-deposit made
The Tribunal was not convinced of a strong prima facie case in favor of granting the waiver as requested by the appellants. The decision to require the pre-deposit of the balance amount was made to ensure compliance with the legal provisions. The stay application was allowed under specific terms to facilitate the appeal process.

Issue 4: Legal implications of non-compliance with the order
It was explicitly stated that failure to comply with the order within the stipulated time would render the appeal liable for dismissal for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Act. A deadline for compliance was set, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Tribunal's directives to avoid adverse legal consequences.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the denial of SSI benefit, the requirement for pre-deposit, the consideration of waiver request, and the legal implications of non-compliance, providing a detailed analysis of each issue based on the arguments presented by both parties and relevant legal precedents.