2008 (7) TMI 707 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Rural area - Held that - if the factory of M/s. SPL is considered to be situate in rural area, the bar, under the relevant SSI exemption notifications, against grant of SSI benefit to specified goods affixed with the brandname of another person cannot operate and, in that event, the assessee will not be required to pay duty of excise for the relevant periods whatever be the method of valuation of the goods - matter requires re-examination - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of S.S.I. benefit to the appellant by the original authority.
2. Upholding of the original authority's decision by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Imposition of penalties on the appellant and the brandname-owner/raw material-supplier.
4. Admissibility of the Tahsildar's certificate as evidence of the factory being situated in a rural area.
5. Interpretation of the term "rural area" under the relevant SSI notifications.
6. Application of the bar against grant of SSI benefit to specified goods affixed with another person's brandname.
7. Remand of the cases to the original authorities for fresh adjudication based on the Tahsildar's certificate.

Analysis:
1. The original authority denied S.S.I. benefit to the appellant for specific periods, citing that the manufacturing unit was not in a rural area and goods were cleared under a different brandname. Penalties were imposed on the appellant and the brandname-owner/raw material-supplier. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's decision, leading to the present appeals challenging these decisions.

2. The appellant presented a certificate from the Tahsildar certifying the factory's location in a rural area. The consultant referenced a previous Tribunal order granting SSI benefit based on a similar certification. The Tribunal noted the consultant's arguments and the JDR's position supporting the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The Tribunal found the lower appellate authority's rejection of the Tahsildar's certificate as evidence of the factory being rural unconvincing. Recognizing the certificate's validity based on land revenue records and previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal referred to a relevant case law. It concluded that if the factory was in a rural area, the bar against granting SSI benefit to branded goods would not apply, leading to duty exemption.

4. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the cases to the original authorities. The directive was to accept the Tahsildar's certificate, reevaluate the cases, and consider both parties' submissions. All appeals were allowed through remand, and stay applications were disposed of accordingly.