2012 (12) TMI 100 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - value of clearance appellant were also manufacturing medicines under the brand-name of others for which they were paying duty without availing benefit under the above notification alleged that exemption could not be availed on any clearance beyond the value limit of Rs. One crore, even if the first clearances included duty paid clearance Held that - with the reference of case of K.N. Chari Rubber Plastics (2001 (4) TMI 157 - CEGAT, CHENNAI ) - exemption for small scale units allowed in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of small scale exemption notification for manufacturers of Medicaments under Heading 30.03 of the Central Excise Tariff availing exemption for small scale units; Calculation of exemption value limit for first clearances; Applicability of exemption beyond the value limit; Revenue's demand for duty based on value limit; Appeal against adjudication orders; Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside adjudication orders; Interpretation of relevant notifications; Comparison with previous case laws; Analysis of para 4 of Notification 8/98-C.E.; Arguments on both sides; Applicability of earlier Tribunal decisions; Decision based on interpretation of relevant notifications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved manufacturers of Medicaments under Heading 30.03 availing exemption for small scale units under specific notifications. The issue revolved around the calculation of the exemption value limit for first clearances and whether the exemption could be availed beyond this limit.

2. The Respondents did not include the value of goods manufactured under others' brand names, for which they paid duty, while calculating the exemption value limit. The Revenue contended that no exemption could be availed beyond the value limit, even if first clearances included duty-paid clearances.

3. Revenue issued show cause notices demanding duty for specific periods, which were confirmed upon adjudication along with interest and penalties under Section 11AC of the Act. The Respondents appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the adjudication orders based on a Tribunal decision in a similar case.

4. The Revenue relied on a Tribunal decision in a different case for interpreting the provisions of an earlier SSI Notification, citing a High Court decision as well. The Respondents referred to para 4 of Notification 8/98-C.E. and subsequent notifications to support their argument.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the notifications in question and compared them with previous decisions. It was noted that the interpretation given in earlier cases was not applicable to the current scenario due to the specific provisions in the relevant notifications.

6. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that the decisions cited were not applicable to the case at hand, emphasizing the importance of the specific provisions in the notifications under consideration.

7. The judgment was pronounced in open court, concluding the Tribunal's decision to reject the Revenue's appeal based on the interpretation of the relevant notifications and the specific provisions therein.

This detailed analysis covers the issues, arguments, and the Tribunal's decision in a comprehensive manner, outlining the legal complexities involved in the judgment.