- (1.) These appeals are preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred as 'the Revenue') questioning the validity of judgment and final order dated 18.2.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, (hereinafter referred as 'the CEGAT'). By the judgment the CEGAT has allowed the appeal of the Respondent herein and set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner Excise levying the excise duty in the sum of Rs. 34,67,164/-. Penalty of an identical amount is also imposed under the provisions of Section 11A(C) of the Central Excise Act. Penalty of Rs. 8.50 lakhs was imposed Under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with further penalty of Rs. 3.50 lakhs on the partner of the Respondent-firm. Consequently, these penalties have also been set aside.
(2.) The issue involved in the present case pertains to the entitlement of the excise exemption in terms of exemption Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.1993 issued by the Department. As per the said Notification small scale industries are allowed exemption in certain circumstances. We are, however, concerned with para 4 of the said Notification No. 1/93 which denies this exemption under certain circumstances. Said para 4 reads as under: The exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this Notification: Provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods which are component parts of any machinery or equipment or appliances and cleared from a factory for use as original equipment in the manufacture of the said machinery or equipment or appliances and the procedure set out in Chapter X of the said Rules is followed: Provided further that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a broad name or trade name (registered or not) of the Khadi and village Industries Commission or of the State Khadi and Village Industries Board.
(3.) It is not in dispute that the Respondent is a small scale industry. However, it was denied the exemption by the Revenue invoking the provisions of para 4 above on the ground that the Respondent is using the brand name of M/s. TISCO Ltd. i.e. TISCOG and therefore comes within the mischief of para 4.;