2018 (11) TMI 13 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 - Held that - The issued involved is no more res integra as the same as already been laid to rest by the Order of this Bench of the CESTAT in the appellant s own case M/S. APPU HOTELS LTD. SHRI A. SENNIMALAI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI I 2018 (7) TMI 241 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein this Bench has ruled in favour of the assessee. The Department has neither been able to distinguish the Order of this Bench in the appellant s own case nor could it furnish any contrary orders/judgements of higher fora; and hence the issue being identical, the above ratio is required to be followed for which reason the impugned Order is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay (COD) in filing the appeal, Interpretation of legal precedent in appellant's own case for SSI exemption

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the appellant sought Condonation of Delay (COD) of 179 days in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to their Clerk leaving without handing over pending papers. The delay was deemed genuine, and the application for COD was allowed. The hearing proceeded with both parties represented. The appellant argued that the issue in question had been previously settled in their favor by the same Bench in a prior case. The respondent, while supporting lower authorities' findings, acknowledged the previous ruling. The Tribunal considered the previous order in the appellant's case, where it was established that the appellant's use of a foreign brand name under an exclusive agreement did not disqualify them from SSI exemption. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal found no merit in the Department's arguments and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits. The decision was based on the lack of distinction by the Department and the absence of contrary orders or judgments, leading to the application of the previous ratio in favor of the appellant. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.