9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (11) TMI 214 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption Treatment of Cenvat - goods cleared under third party s brand name were to be considered as out of the purview o Notification No. 8/98-C.E. (b) these goods which were cleared on payment of full duty by availing input duty credit were not to be taken into account for computing the aggregate value of clearances for purposes of the Notification and (c) the benefit of exemption under the Notification was admissible to the goods cleared without brand name or under own brand name as the aggregate value of such clearances was within limit and Modvat credit was not availed of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of such goods Held that - The appellant s case is not one of simultaneous availment of exemption and Modvat credit. It is rather a case of availment of exemption in respect of goods covered by SSI Notification 8/98-C.E. and availment of Modvat benefit in respect of goods lying outside the purview of the Exemption Notification Exemption allowed demand of duty and penalty set aside
Issues:
1. Denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/98-C.E. and direction to pay duty at concessional rate. 2. Consideration of judgments by Tribunal and High Court. 3. Dispute over simultaneous availment of SSI exemption and Modvat credit. 4. Exclusion of goods cleared under third party's brand name from SSI exemption. 5. Applicability of case law supporting appellant's claim. Analysis: 1. The appeal concerns the demand of differential duty and penalty on the appellant due to the denial of the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/98-C.E. The issue arose from the clearance of specified goods under different brand names, leading to a demand for duty payment at a concessional rate in accordance with Notification No. 9/98 C.E. The case also involves a penalty imposed on the assessee, which is contested in this appeal. 2. The Tribunal considered various judgments, including the remand order of the High Court, which directed a de novo consideration of the appeal. The High Court emphasized the importance of reviewing previous Tribunal judgments, such as CCE v Solik Foods and Stanlek Engineering P. Ltd. v. CCE, to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the case. Additionally, the Tribunal examined the relevance of Nebulae Health Care Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, and CCE v. Ramesh Food Products judgments in the context of the present appeal. 3. The dispute revolves around the simultaneous availment of SSI exemption and Modvat credit by the appellant. The department contended that the value of goods cleared under another's brand name should be included in determining the aggregate value of clearances for SSI exemption eligibility. The appellant argued against this interpretation, highlighting the distinction between goods cleared under their own brand name and those under a third party's brand name. 4. The Tribunal addressed the exclusion of goods cleared under a third party's brand name from SSI exemption benefits. Referring to the case law, including Nebulae Healthcare, the Tribunal acknowledged that goods bearing a third party's brand name were not eligible for exemption under the relevant notifications. The appellant's claim that such goods should be excluded from the purview of Notification No. 8/98-C.E. was supported by the legal analysis. 5. The case law cited by the appellant's counsel supported their argument that goods cleared under a third party's brand name should not be considered for SSI exemption calculations. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's position, noting that the benefit of exemption was applicable to goods cleared without a brand name or under the appellant's brand name, while paying duty on goods bearing a third party's brand name. The judgment ultimately set aside the demand for duty and penalty, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
