2018 (1) TMI 1392 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand of the principal manufacturer - N/N. 8/2003-CE, dt. 01-03-2003 - period April 2004 to March 2006 - Held that - It is undisputed that during the period in question, appellants were manufacturing pumps and various parts of the pumps and were affixing the brand of the principal manufacturer. Provisions, clauses alongwith notification at page No. 239 are very clear and since it is not available to the appellants - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of benefit of exemption notification No. 8/2003-CE for the period April 2004 to March 2006.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Hyderabad, the appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal. The appellant did not appear, and the Commissioner/AR submitted a written statement reiterating the grounds of appeal. The Commissioner pointed out that a similar issue for the same appellants had been decided in favor of the respondent by the Tribunal previously. The issue pertained to the denial of the benefit of exemption notification No. 8/2003-CE for the period April 2004 to March 2006. The appellants were manufacturing pumps and affixing the brand of the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal noted that the provisions and clauses of the notification were clear, and since they were not available to the appellants, the benefit was denied. Referring to a previous judgment of the Tribunal and a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and rejected the appeals, stating there was no reason to deviate from the earlier decision.

This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to clear provisions and clauses of exemption notifications. It emphasizes the significance of past decisions by the Tribunal and higher courts in determining similar issues for the same assessee. The case serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing the interpretation and application of exemption notifications in indirect tax matters.