2002 (5) TMI 633 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 9/99-C.E. regarding SSI exemption for branded goods.
2. Requirement of following Chapter X procedure for availing exemption.
3. Applicability of case law and circulars in determining eligibility for exemption.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 9/99-C.E. concerning the eligibility of branded goods for SSI exemption. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that Electric Control Panels affixed with a 'Carrier' logo were considered branded goods, thus not eligible for SSI exemption as per para 4 of the Notification. The appellant contended that their goods supplied to a specific manufacturer should qualify for the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the old case law cited did not apply due to the absence of specific conditions for branded goods in the relevant SSI exemption Notification.

2. The second issue pertains to the requirement of following Chapter X procedure for availing the exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. The appellant argued that their goods supplied to a particular manufacturer should be exempted under the Notification. However, the learned DR highlighted that the Chapter X procedure was not followed by the appellant, which was considered an essential condition for availing the benefit of the exemption. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements for exemption entitlement.

3. The judgment also delves into the applicability of case law and circulars in determining exemption eligibility. The appellant cited various cases to support their contention that supplying goods to a specific manufacturer should qualify for SSI exemption. On the contrary, the learned DR emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements, as highlighted in a Supreme Court case. The Tribunal ultimately held that the benefit of the Notification was rightly denied due to the non-compliance with Chapter X procedure, despite being a nominal lapse, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for availing exemptions under specific notifications, even if the goods are supplied to a designated manufacturer. The case highlights the significance of following prescribed procedures to ensure eligibility for exemptions under relevant regulations, as established through legal precedents and interpretations.