2008 (6) TMI 532 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Eligibility of respondents for Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-3-93 exemption.

Detailed Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the eligibility of the respondents to avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-3-93. The respondents opted for the benefit of this notification on goods manufactured under their own brand name while paying duty on branded products of other manufacturers. The revenue issued show cause notices denying the benefit of the notification even on the respondents' own branded goods, leading to confirmation of demand and penalty imposition by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the matter and allowed the appeal in favor of the respondents, citing the applicability of the notification for concessional duty to SSI units, excluding branded goods.

The key argument presented by the revenue was that the benefit of SSI exemption cannot be availed by the assessee for two categories of goods, relying on a Supreme Court judgment in a different case. However, the respondents' counsel distinguished the case at hand concerning Notification No. 1/93 from the precedent cited by the revenue, emphasizing the differences in the provisions of the notifications. Reference was made to a Larger Bench decision in a similar matter, where it was held that the assessee could pay duty on branded goods of other manufacturers while availing exemption for eligible goods.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the issue was straightforward. The respondents manufactured rubber parts and claimed exemption on their own branded goods while paying full excise duty on branded goods from other manufacturers. The revenue sought to deny the exemption based on the interpretation of the notification's clause. However, the Tribunal found alignment with the interpretation provided in a previous case, emphasizing that the branded goods were outside the purview of the notification, allowing the benefit of concessional duty to eligible goods.

Further support for the respondents' position was found in a Division Bench decision and another Tribunal case, both affirming that the payment of duty on branded goods would not disqualify other products from benefiting from the notification. The Tribunal also concurred with previous decisions in similar cases, ultimately rejecting the revenue's appeal and ruling in favor of the respondents based on the established legal precedents and interpretations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the issue to be squarely covered in favor of the respondents, citing consistent judgments and orders from the Larger Bench and Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was rejected, affirming the eligibility of the respondents for the Notification No. 1/93 exemption.