2018 (1) TMI 1377 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - the appellants goods are specified goods bearing the brand name of M/s. Advantech Co. Ltd., Taiwan - N/N. 8/2003 dated 1.3.2003 - time limitation - Held that - The appellant is registered with the department and availing the SSI exemption, so, the appellant is entitled to SSI exemption and cum duty subject to the satisfaction of the lower authorities - matter remanded to the original authority for the limited purpose to verify the genuineness of the cenvat credit and cum duty and decide the issue denovo - matter on remand. Time Limitation - Held that - The finding of the Additional Commissioner mentioned in the Order-in-Original at para 10.3, is sustained without repeating the same. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying benefit under Notification No. 8/2003 for imported computers. Entitlement to SSI exemption and cum duty. Verification of genuineness of cenvat credit and cum duty. Time bar issue.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 23/CE/DLH/2017, which denied the benefit under Notification No. 8/2003 for imported computers. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and trading of Industrial Computers, imported goods from M/s Advantech Company Ltd., Taiwan. The notification specified conditions for exemption, including restrictions on goods bearing a brand name of another person. Both parties agreed that the appellant's goods bore the brand name of M/s. Advantech Co. Ltd., Taiwan, making the appellant ineligible for the benefit under the notification. However, as the appellant was registered with the department and availing the SSI exemption, they were entitled to SSI exemption and cum duty, subject to verification of genuineness by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority to verify the genuineness of the cenvat credit and cum duty and decide the issue denovo. Penalties were to be decided accordingly. The time bar issue was also addressed, with the Tribunal sustaining the finding of the Additional Commissioner mentioned in the Order-in-Original. The impugned order was modified, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh computation, providing reasonable opportunity to the appellants. The appeals filed by the appellant were allowed by way of remand, ensuring a comprehensive review of the case.

The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, provided a detailed analysis of the issues raised in the appeal. The legal principles governing the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 were carefully considered, along with the appellant's entitlement to SSI exemption and cum duty. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further verification and computation demonstrated a fair and thorough approach to resolving the dispute. Overall, the judgment offered a balanced and reasoned outcome, ensuring that the appellant's rights were upheld while also addressing the concerns raised by the Respondent and the lower authorities.