2017 (4) TMI 492 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - It was alleged that the appellant had violated the condition laid down in para 2(i) and (iii) of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, by clearing the goods having brand names of others, and assessee is not entitle to avail CENVAT credit and SSI exemption - Held that - the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of League Laboratories Ltd. 2016 (9) TMI 483 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where following the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Nabulae Health Care Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the assessee is entitled to benefit of exemption N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, the impugned order is set aside - the appellant is entitled for SSI exemption under N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand by denying SSI Exemption, availing exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE, violation of conditions, cenvat credit, interest, penalty.

Analysis:

1. Denial of SSI Exemption:
The appellant was engaged in manufacturing P.P Medicines under their brand and other brands. The issue arose when it was found that they availed exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE for goods with their brand but cleared goods with other brands by paying duty and availing cenvat credit on inputs. The show cause notice alleged violation of conditions, leading to duty recovery, interest, and penalty imposition.

2. Legal Interpretation:
The appellant argued similarity with a previous case where the Tribunal held in favor of SSI exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant Notifications and legal provisions, emphasizing that clearances bearing third-party brands are excluded from exemption. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision and concluded that for home production without availing cenvat credit, the appellant was entitled to the exemption.

3. Precedent and Decision:
Referring to another case, the Tribunal highlighted that each Notification must be interpreted strictly on its terms. Considering the facts akin to the precedent case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting the appellant the benefit of Notification 8/2003-CE.

4. Final Decision:
The Tribunal, based on the legal analysis and precedent, held that the appellant was entitled to SSI exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE. Citing the decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned orders, setting them aside and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and specific circumstances led to the decision in favor of the appellant, granting them the SSI exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE and setting aside the demands, interest, and penalties imposed.