2018 (11) TMI 76 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption - branded goods manufactured in Himachal Pradesh, exempt from payment of duty under N/N. 49 & 50/2003, dated 10.06.2003 - the aggregate value of the clearances of both units i.e. Hyderabad and Himachal Pradesh exceeded ₹ 400/- lakhs during the financial year 2007-08 - Held that - An identical issue decided in the case of SARVOTHAM CARE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD-IV 2015 (11) TMI 244 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that It is settled law that we cannot go into the intentions of the legislature, unless there is ambiguity or lack of clarity in the notification. The notification has to be implemented according to the meaning of the words and clauses used therein. It is nobody s case that Notification No.49/2003 and No.50/2003 have been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for availing benefit under notification No. 8/2003-CE
- Denial of benefit due to exceeding aggregate value of clearances
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 51/2009 (H-IV) CE

Analysis:

1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 51/2009 (H-IV) CE, dated 23.11.2009. The appellants, manufacturers of various products, including cosmetic and pharmaceutical items, availed benefits under notification No. 8/2003-CE. However, due to the aggregate value of clearances exceeding a specified limit during the financial year 2007-08, they were deemed ineligible for the benefit from April 2008 onwards. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued, leading to confirmation of demands, interest, and penalties by the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority.

2. The appellant's counsel cited a previous decision by the Tribunal in the same assessee's case, where a similar issue was resolved in their favor for the period April 2007 to March 2008. The counsel also highlighted the rejection of the Revenue's appeal by the Tribunal based on the mentioned decision. Upon reviewing the submissions and the previous decision, the Tribunal noted the identical nature of the facts in both cases, with the only difference being the period under consideration, i.e., post 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 in the current appeal.

3. Considering the settled issue in the appellant's favor in the previous case with similar facts, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the view taken in the earlier decision. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Tribunal members, Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. P.V. Subba Rao.