PIONEER ELECTRONICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the challenge is against a demand of duty confirmed against the appellants by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise. The demand is consequential to denial, to the assessee, of the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 -C.E. This denial is based on a finding that, during the period of dispute (1 -3 -1988 to 28 -12 -1988), the assessee used on their goods a brand name ("PIONEER") which was registered in the name of another party, namely, M/s. Coimbatore Pioneer Textile Mills Ltd., who were using the said brand name on their products. The assessee was using the same brand name on Dish Antenna. It was held by the adjudicating Authority that the clearances of branded Dish Antenna effected by the assessee during the period of dispute were hit by the bar contained in para -7 of the above Notification, which stipulated that the benefit of exemption under the Notification was not available to a manufacturer who used on his own goods any brand name which belonged to another person who was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification. The textile company, which was registered owner of the brand name, was, admittedly, not entitled to the benefit of the Notification.

(2.) IN the present appeal, the demand of duty is contested on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted by the appellants that the textile company was using the brand name on different products (textile yarns, fabrics, garments etc.) and, therefore, para 7 of the Notification could not be invoked against the assessee who were using the brand name on Dish Antenna, which was different from the products of the textile company. The second ground raised by the appellants is that the entire demand is barred by limitation. Ld. counsel has reiterated these grounds and cited case law in support thereof. He has also relied on the Board's Circular No. 88/88 -CX. 6 dated 30 -12 -1988. Ld. DR has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and has also cited decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification on the facts of this case.

(3.) AFTER carefully considering the submissions, we find that, as rightly contended by Id. DR, the assessee has no case on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has conclusively held that it is not open to a small scale manufacturer seeking to avail SSI exemption, to contend that his goods cleared under the brand name of another person who is also using the same brand name are not hit by the exception provided in the relevant SSI exemption Notification on the ground that the other person is using the brand name on goods different from his. This is abundantly clear from the following decisions : -