9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 988 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption Extended Period - Waiver of Pre-deposit - Whether the appellant who was using the brand name of a foreign company and selling the goods under that brand in India is eligible for SSI exemption or not Held that - Following Namtech System Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (12) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI - there were different views during the period prior to that date - Prima facie extended period could not have been invoked - the appellant has made out a case for waiver of predeposit and stay on limitation itself - there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery during the pendency of appeal Stay granted.
Issues involved: Eligibility for SSI exemption based on the use of a foreign brand name in India; Validity of extended period for issuing show-cause notice.
Analysis: 1. Eligibility for SSI exemption: The main issue in this case revolves around the eligibility of the appellant, who used a foreign brand name to sell goods in India, for Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption. Despite detailed arguments on the merits and facts presented, the judgment focuses on the appellant's case for waiver of predeposit and stay on limitation. The Tribunal did not delve into all the facts, as it found the appellant had established a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay against recovery during the appeal process. 2. Validity of extended period for show-cause notice: The show-cause notice in this case was issued on 23/06/1999, covering the period from 10/04/2006 to 31/12/1998. The appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that the demand for the entire period involved the invocation of an extended period, as the notice should have been issued within six months. Referring to the decision in the case of Forsco Chemicals India Ltd. [1993(65) ELT 119 (Tri.)] where the demand was dropped, it was highlighted that a subsequent decision by a Larger Bench in the case of Namtech System Ltd. Vs. CCE [2000(115) ELT 238 (Tri. LB)] reversed the earlier view. The Tribunal noted that the formation of a Larger Bench indicated conflicting views on the issue before that date, suggesting that the extended period might not have been appropriately invoked in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting waiver of predeposit and a stay on recovery during the appeal process. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of eligibility for SSI exemption and the validity of the extended period for issuing the show-cause notice, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision in this case.
|
