COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. KALSI ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal by the Revenue is against order dated 31 -8 -2005 of Commissioner (Appeals). The facts in brief are that the respondents were manufacturers of various types of agricultural implements, PD Pumps and parts, etc. The respondent availed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2002 -C.E. in respect of various goods like valves, fittings, castings and parts. They were manufacturing PD Pumps and parts thereof with the brand name 'Kalsi' which belongs to another person. For this clearance they have discharged full rate of duty. The case of the Revenue is that clearance of all goods manufactured by the respondent should be considered for arriving at the aggregate value. In other words the total turnover of goods manufactured and cleared in their brand name and the brand name of other person should be clubbed together as both the brand names are same - 'Kalsi'. Show cause notice dated 15 -7 -2004 was issued to the respondent and was adjudicated by the original authority vide order dated 20 -1 -2005 confirming the demand and imposing equal penalty. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and held that the value of clearance of goods with another person's brand name cleared and on full payment of duty cannot be included in the aggregate value and as such the appellant is not liable to any further duty. The present appeal is against this impugned order. In the appeal much emphasis has been made to the effect that there is no agreement or understanding with other owner of brand name in respect of PD Pumps and there is no order placed by M/s. Kalsi Metal Works, owner of brand name 'Kalsi', in respect of these branded products. The Revenue pleaded that the lower Appellate Authority erred in holding that PD Pumps cleared with the brand name of 'Kalsi' on payment of duty cannot be considered for addition in the aggregate turnover. Further, in the sale invoice the general description of agricultural implements was mentioned by the respondent. The learned AR reiterated the points in appeal. None appeared for the respondent. On perusal of the appeal papers it is clear that the only point for consideration is as to whether the respondent is correct in paying full Central Excise duty in respect of PD Pumps on the ground that these were with the brand name of another person. The Revenue's view is that the value of PD Pumps are also to be added to arrive at the SSI exemption limit. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) examined in detail these issues and arrived at the categorical conclusion that the brand name 'Kalsi' used by the respondent for PD Pumps belongs to M/s. Kalsi Metal Works, Jallandhar only and that being the case no SSI exemption is applicable in respect of such goods. There is no evidence on record to show that the brand name 'Kalsi' for PD Pumps and spares thereof belonged to the respondent. Regarding classification for sales tax purpose, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also given his finding discounting the Revenue's view. As such, we find no reason to disagree with the findings of the lower Appellate Authority and accordingly dismiss the appeal.