2000 (1) TMI 351 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the appellant was affixing the brand name of another person on the excisable goods manufactured by them, making them ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Affixing Brand Name of Another Person
The appeal filed by M/s. Raipur Grinding Industries Corporation raised the issue of whether they affixed the brand name of another person on the excisable goods they manufactured, rendering them ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. The Deputy Commissioner, in an Adjudication Order, denied them the benefit of the notification, confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty, and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeal, stating that the claim of being joint owners of the brand "D.C.C." was an afterthought.

Analysis: The appellant manufactured Cement under the brand name "D.C.C.," which was registered in the name of another manufacturer. The appellant's argument that both units were closely related and should be considered as one entity was presented. However, the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) found this claim to be unsubstantiated, emphasizing that the brand "D.C.C." belonged to another person. The tribunal concurred, noting that the appellant had shifted their stance multiple times, and the evidence did not support their claim of joint ownership of the brand.

Decision: The tribunal held that the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was not available to the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant since they were affixed with the brand name "D.C.C.," owned by another entity. However, the tribunal allowed Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs if proper documentation was provided within a specified timeframe. The penalty imposed on the appellant for removing excisable goods without duty payment was upheld.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's goods were ineligible for the benefit of the notification due to the unauthorized use of another person's brand name. The decision highlighted the importance of substantiating ownership claims and complying with excise duty regulations to avoid penalties.