9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 618 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - N/N. 8/2003-CentraI Excise dated 01.03.2003 - use of brand name of others - Held that - similar issue has come up before the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Nebulae Health Care Limited 2015 (11) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that A holistic reading of the Notification, in the light of the other paragraphs, brings into focus the overall scheme. It, inter alia, provides that the clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of third parties which are ineligible for grant of this exemption, for the purposes of determining aggregate value of clearances for home consumption, are not to be included - the appellant is entitled for the benefit of N/N. 8/2003- Central/excuse dated 01.03.2003 for their own manufactured goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-Central Excise. 2. Alleged violation of conditions laid down in para 2(i) and (iii) of Notification No. 8/2003-Central Excise. 3. Entitlement to Cenvat credit facility. 4. Applicability of the Apex Court decision in CCE, Chennai vs. Nebulae Health Care Limited. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-Central Excise: The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of PP Medicaments and availed the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-Central Excise dated 01.03.2003. The exemption was denied on the grounds that the appellant simultaneously cleared goods affixed with the brand name of other persons on payment of duty and availed Cenvat credit on these clearances. The Tribunal referred to the Apex Court decision in Nebulae Health Care Limited, which clarified that clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of third parties are not to be included for determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the notification for their own manufactured goods. 2. Alleged violation of conditions laid down in para 2(i) and (iii) of Notification No. 8/2003-Central Excise: The appellant was accused of violating the conditions in para 2(i) and (iii) of the notification by availing Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of specified goods cleared for home consumption before the aggregate value of clearances exceeded rupees one crore. The Tribunal, relying on the Apex Court's interpretation in Nebulae Health Care Limited, stated that goods bearing the brand name of third parties are excluded from the computation of aggregate value for exemption benefits. Therefore, the appellant did not violate the conditions of the notification. 3. Entitlement to Cenvat credit facility: The Tribunal addressed the appellant's simultaneous availing of Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods affixed with the brand name of other persons. The Apex Court in Nebulae Health Care Limited held that once excise duty is paid on branded goods manufactured for third parties, the SSI Unit is entitled to Cenvat/Modvat credit on the inputs used for manufacturing such goods. The Tribunal followed this rationale, affirming the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit. 4. Applicability of the Apex Court decision in CCE, Chennai vs. Nebulae Health Care Limited: The Tribunal emphasized that the issue at hand was already settled by the Apex Court in the case of Nebulae Health Care Limited. The Apex Court's decision clarified that clearances bearing the brand name of third parties are not to be included for determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption and that such products are not eligible for exemption. The Tribunal also referenced its own previous decision in IDMA Labs Limited, which followed the Apex Court's ruling, thereby supporting the appellant's claim for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-Central Excise. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-Central Excise for their own manufactured goods and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the court.
|
