9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 434 - AT - Central ExciseDate on which notification becoming effective - Legality of simultaneous availment of SSI exemption benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and CENVAT Credit in respect of its branded goods Victor Paints manufactured by the Assessee as well as goods of Berger Paints processed by it as job worker and cleared under the brand names of Berger - HELD THAT - The period under dispute in this appeal is before introduction of such an amended provision in February, 2009 but going by the entire text of the Notification, it can be said that the same is clarificatory in nature, that can be applied from the day of its inception, as has been held by this Tribunal in the case of VAIBHAV ACQUA FRESH LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II 2009 (3) TMI 191 - CESTAT, MUMBAI wherein such amendment was held to be of clarificatory in nature. Having regard to the judicial precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. NEBULAE HEALTH CARE LTD. 2015 (11) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT vis-a-vis insertion of proviso into the Notification w.e.f. 11.02.2009 that clarified the notification further, Appellant is entitled to the SSI exemption available under Notification No. 8/2003-CE for clearance of its branded product and also entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on clearance of branded products of others cleared through payment of duty - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
The appeal concerns the legality of simultaneous availment of SSI exemption benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE and CENVAT Credit for branded goods 'Victor' Paints manufactured by the Appellant and goods of 'Berger' Paints processed as a job worker. Facts and Background: The Appellant, a manufacturer of Paints & Varnishes, was availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE for its own branded products while also manufacturing Berger Branded goods and clearing them on payment of Excise duty. A show-cause notice was issued proposing denial of benefits of the Notification and duty demand, interest, and penalty were imposed. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the duty demand, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. Appellant's Argument: During the appeal, the Appellant's Counsel cited a Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court judgment, Nebulae Health Care Ltd., to support the simultaneous availment of exemption and CENVAT Credit. The Counsel also referred to an amendment to the Notification and a previous Tribunal decision to strengthen the argument in favor of the Appellant. Respondent's Argument: The Authorised Representative for the Respondent argued in support of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, stating that it was based on relevant precedents applicable during the period of the dispute, including the decision in the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahemdabad Vs. Ramesh Food Products. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal emphasized the evolving nature of the law and the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments. Referring to the Nebulae Health Care Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant is entitled to both SSI exemption for its branded products and CENVAT Credit for goods of others cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal also considered the amendment to the Notification and previous Tribunal decisions to support its decision. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and providing consequential relief to the Appellant. Significant Legal Phrases: - SSI exemption benefit - CENVAT Credit - Notification No. 8/2003-CE - Duty demand - Show-cause notice - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) - Nebulae Health Care Ltd. judgment - Tribunal decision - Excise duty - Judicial precedent - Amendment to the Notification - Operative portion of the order
|
