9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1319 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of SSI Exemption - Enhancement in aggregate value of clearances for the purposes of Notification No.8/2003-CE - Held that - In the grounds of appeal the Revenue is silent about clear findings of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order regarding the Respondent clearing body built Motor Vehicles with the brand name of TATA to the Regional Sales Office of TATA Motors.Accordingly, the value of branded Motor Vehicle Bodies is not includible in arriving at aggregate value of first clearance of specified goods.He also recorded that value of all excisable goods cleared other than branded goods upto 28.4.2004 comes to ₹ 10,40,542 accordingly he held the demand is unsustainable - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 07/3/2006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding SSI exemption calculation. 2. Inclusion of clearances of Motor Vehicles, Aluminum scrap, and M.S. scrap in the aggregate value for Notification No.8/2003-CE purposes. 3. Exclusion of branded Motor Vehicle Bodies from the aggregate value calculation. 4. Sustainability of the demand based on findings of ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Issue 1: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 07/3/2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Respondent, engaged in manufacturing Plant & Machinery and Motor Vehicles, had some goods cleared on payment of duty, and discrepancies were found in the calculation of the aggregate value for SSI exemption. The original authority confirmed the demand with a penalty, but on appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and allowed the appeal. Issue 2: The Revenue contended that the value of clearances of Motor Vehicles, Aluminum scrap, and M.S. scrap, cleared on payment of duty, should be added to the aggregate value for the purposes of Notification No.8/2003-CE. The argument was that clearing scrap without availing exemption under the notification constitutes a deemed option. The ld. AR reiterated this ground of appeal. Issue 3: During the proceedings, it was noted that the Respondent had cleared body built Motor Vehicles with the brand name of TATA to the Regional Sales Office of TATA Motors. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found that the value of branded Motor Vehicle Bodies should not be included in the calculation of the aggregate value for specified goods. The Commissioner also determined the value of excisable goods cleared, excluding branded goods, up to a certain date. These findings were not challenged in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Issue 4: The grounds of appeal by the Revenue did not address the clear findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the exclusion of branded Motor Vehicle Bodies from the aggregate value calculation. The Commissioner had detailed the value of excisable goods cleared, and based on these findings, held the demand to be unsustainable. As the Revenue did not provide sustainable grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's findings, the appeal was dismissed. This judgment highlights the importance of accurate calculation of aggregate values for exemption purposes, the implications of clearing goods on payment of duty, and the significance of not challenging specific findings during appeal proceedings. The decision emphasizes the need for thorough assessments and proper consideration of all relevant factors in tax appeals.
|
