9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 552 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - crossing of turnover limit - Held that - it appears that during the period under consideration the appellant has not crossed the limit of the SSI exemption - issue squarely covered by the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Universal Electrical Industries 2003 (3) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that when the value of the finished goods, which are exempted under different notifications, is to be excluded, while arriving at the aggregate value of clearance for the purpose of volume of the benefit of notification No. 175/86, having regard to the wording of Explanation II thereof - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of excise duty notifications regarding the exemption scheme for specified goods. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal from 2007 concerning the period of dispute in 1997-98. The case revolved around the manufacturing of Lay Flat Tubings (LFT) used in plastic bag production, subject to excise duty under Notification No. 4/97. Both LFT and plastic bags were under the SSI exemption scheme as per Notification No. 16/1997. The department argued that intermediate goods were subject to excise duty as final products were cleared without payment. The original authority dropped the demand based on a Supreme Court ruling. However, the appeal by the department reversed this decision, prompting the appellant to file the present appeal. During the hearing, it was established that the appellant did not exceed the SSI exemption limit during the relevant period. The case aligned with the Supreme Court's ruling, emphasizing the exclusion of exempted finished goods' value when calculating the aggregate value for exemption. Explanation III further clarified that inputs used for manufacturing exempted finished goods should not be considered in the aggregate value calculation. This rationale aimed to provide relief to small-scale industries by preventing double counting of inputs enjoying exemption. Consequently, the tribunal found no justification to uphold the department's order, ultimately allowing the appellant's appeal.
|
