2018 (4) TMI 1044 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - case of the department is that though the appellant's factories are located in rural area but major process of manufacturing is carried out by the job workers who are not located in rural areas but in urban areas - Held that - As per the activity the appellant is only carrying out affixation of brand on the tools i.e. spanner by embossing/ engraving. This process alone does not amount to manufacture - As regards other processes which are carried out by the job workers, it prima facie appears that the independent process of heat treatment, shot blasting and plating do not amount to manufacture - if at all there is a liability of duty arising, the same is recoverable from job worker. The appellant cannot be charged to duty even if the exemption notification no. 8/2000 is not admissible to them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availing SSI exemption under notification no. 8/2000-C.E.
- Manufacturing process carried out in rural vs. urban areas.
- Liability for duty on clearances.
- Applicability of exemption to goods bearing another person's brand name.
- Time bar for revenue's appeal.

Analysis:

Availing SSI exemption under notification no. 8/2000-C.E.:
The appellants were availing SSI exemption under notification no. 8/2000-C.E. for the product "spanners" under the brand name "Taparia." The issue revolved around whether the appellants were entitled to this exemption, considering the specific conditions laid down in the notification.

Manufacturing process carried out in rural vs. urban areas:
The appellants embossed/engraved the brand "Taparia" on unbranded spanners, which were then sent for various job works like heat treatment, shot blasting, and plating. The question arose whether these processes, carried out by individual job workers in urban areas, affected the eligibility of the appellants for SSI exemption, given that their factories were located in rural areas.

Liability for duty on clearances:
The department contended that since the major manufacturing processes were conducted by job workers in urban areas, the goods were not fully manufactured in rural areas, thus making the appellants liable to pay duty on their clearances. The crux of the issue was determining the extent of manufacturing activities that would qualify for the SSI exemption.

Applicability of exemption to goods bearing another person's brand name:
The notification allowed exemption even for goods bearing another person's brand name if manufactured in a rural area. The debate centered on whether the appellants, by embossing the brand "Taparia" on spanners, could still claim the exemption despite the job works being done outside rural areas.

Time bar for revenue's appeal:
One of the appeals involved a time bar issue, with the lower authority dropping the demand on limitation grounds due to no suppression of facts. The contention was whether the revenue's appeal, challenging the time bar decision, was maintainable based on the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, after considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellants' activities did not amount to manufacturing, and even if they did, the duty liability would fall on the job workers. Citing a Larger Bench judgment, the Tribunal ruled that the duty, if applicable, should be recoverable from the job workers. Consequently, the demand was set aside, and the appeals of the assessees were allowed, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.