2016 (1) TMI 333 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of SSI Exemption - Use of other s brand name - factory located in rural area - whether the respondent has correctly availed the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 during the financial year 2002-03 - Held that - Show-cause notice as well as the findings of the first appellate authority clearly record that the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE is denied on the ground that the appellant is not eligible to avail the benefit as they are affixing the brand name of cable craft which does not belong to them. Be that as it may, the said Notification specifically exempts the goods on which brand name or trade name are affixed if the said goods are manufactured in a factory located in rural area - appellant s factory is situated in MIDC notified by the Government of Maharashtra hence falls under the category of exclusively carved out by a Notification. - there was a certificate issued by the Tehsildar of the Village that the factory of the appellant is located in the rural area and another certificate which has been issued by the Regional Officer, MIDC, Nagpur to the same effect. It is not the case of the Revenue, the Regional Officer, MIDC could not have issued the said certificate indicating that the respondent s factory is located in rural area. As against such a specific findings of the first appellate authority, we find that the Grounds of Appeal does not provide any evidence controverting such a certificate. We also find that the Grounds of Appeal is not contesting the genuinity of such certificate produced by the appellant. - No merit in appeal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct availing of benefit under Notification No.8/2002-CE during the financial year 2002-03.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute regarding the correct availing of benefits under Notification No.8/2002-CE during the financial year 2002-03. The Revenue contended that the respondent had availed the benefit incorrectly by manufacturing products bearing the brand name "cable craft," which did not belong to them. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand raised by the Revenue, stating that the respondent was assembling products with a brand name owned by a foreign company. However, the first appellate authority set aside the demands, citing that the factory was located in a rural area as certified by the Tehsildar of the Village and the Regional Officer, MIDC, Nagpur, making them eligible for the benefits under the said notification.

Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal found that the denial of benefits under Notification No.8/2002-CE was primarily based on the grounds that the appellant was affixing a brand name not owned by them. Nevertheless, the said notification exempts goods with affixed brand names if manufactured in a factory situated in a rural area. The Tribunal emphasized the definition of "Rural area" as per the notification, excluding areas under municipal or urban jurisdictions. The Revenue argued that the appellant's factory was in an MIDC notified area, falling outside the rural definition. However, the Tribunal considered the certificates provided by the appellant, confirming the factory's rural location, and noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting these certificates.

In light of the evidence presented and the lack of contestation regarding the certificates, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's factory indeed fell within a rural area as defined by the notification. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and affirming the impugned order.