2014 (5) TMI 1033 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of SSI Exemption - SSI exemption was denied on the ground that up to March 2010 using of brand name for the purpose of SSI exemption was not available - Held that - The Central Government vide Notification No. 10/2013 - C.E. (N.T.) dated 02.08.2013 has provided retrospective exemption for clearances of plastic containers and plastic bottles meant for use as packing material by the person whose brand name such goods bear for the clearances from 16.06.2003 to 26.02.2010. The period involved in the present case is from July 2006 to March 2010 which is covered by the said notification for the purpose of availing the duty exemption. - Following decision of - M/s. Ajay Plastics Versus CC CE&ST Hyderabad-IV 2015 (1) TMI 295 - CESTAT BANGALORE M/s. Anuradha Industries 2015 (4) TMI 275 - CESTAT BANGALORE and M/s Pragya Packaging Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 274 - CESTAT BANGALORE - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of SSI exemption for manufacturing plastic bottles bearing a specific brand name.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 10/2013 - C.E. (N.T.) dated 02/08/2013.
3. Comparison with similar cases where appeals were allowed.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the denial of SSI exemption to an appellant engaged in manufacturing plastic bottles bearing a specific brand name for another company. The denial was based on the lack of availability of brand name usage for SSI exemption until March 2010. This resulted in the confirmation of Central Excise duty along with interest and the imposition of a penalty on the appellant.

2. The appellant argued that Notification No. 10/2013 - C.E. (N.T.) dated 02/08/2013, issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, provided retrospective exemption for clearances of plastic containers and bottles bearing a brand name for the period from 16/06/2003 to 26/02/2010. The Tribunal noted that the period in question in the present case (July 2006 to March 2010) fell within the scope of this notification, allowing for duty exemption. The Tribunal also referenced similar cases where appeals by other manufacturers were allowed, supporting the appellant's position.

3. After hearing arguments from both parties and reviewing the case record, the Tribunal found the issue to be straightforward. The stay application was allowed without the need for pre-deposit of dues, and the appeal was taken up for final disposal. The Tribunal's decision was in favor of the appellant, citing the retrospective exemption provided in Notification No. 10/2013 and the precedent set by previous cases where appeals were allowed. Consequently, the present appeal was allowed, with any consequential relief granted to the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, the legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and precedents set by similar cases.