9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 24 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption manufacture of packing material with brand name - validity of Departmental clarification in 1987 Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The present case is a case where without the notification barring exemption assesses were made to believe that branded goods manufactured by them shall be exempt from duty in terms of Circular No. 345 dated 29/10/87 - The appellant cannot take a plea that the Circular dated 29/10/87 withdrawn on 01/9/08 shall hold the field of exemption - But the peculiar circumstance in this case noticeable is from Notification No. 4/2010 which is part of the legislation denies exemption amending the Notification No. 8/2003 - This prevailed over the assesses till 27/02/10 in spite of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore 2005 (8) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Keeping the difficulty aforesaid there shall be waiver of pre-deposit till 31st January 2014 or disposal of appeal, whichever period is earlier - stay granted.
Issues:
1. Applicability of Circular No. 345 dated 29/10/1987 for exemption on branded goods manufactured by SSI. 2. Withdrawal of Circular No. 345 and its impact on the appellant's belief. 3. Adjudication sustainability in light of the withdrawn Circular. 4. Prevalence of law declared by the Supreme Court over Board Circulars. 5. Impact of Notification No. 4/2010-CE dated 27/02/10 on exemption claims. 6. Waiver of pre-deposit till a specified date or appeal disposal. Analysis: 1. The appellant contended that the plastic bottles manufactured with the brand name Gagan were meant for supply to Amrit Vanaspati, believing they were entitled to exemption under Circular No. 345 dated 29/10/1987 for goods manufactured by SSI. However, the Circular was withdrawn on 01/09/08 following the Supreme Court's judgment in Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore, which emphasized the precedence of law declared by the Supreme Court over Board Circulars. 2. The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued for the period of 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, after the withdrawal of the Circular, should not be sustained as there was no suppression on their part due to their genuine belief based on the now withdrawn Circular. 3. The Revenue supported the adjudication, asserting that the law declared by the Supreme Court takes precedence over Circulars. The judgment in Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore did not entitle the appellant to SSI exemption for branded goods manufactured. 4. The Tribunal acknowledged that the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution prevails. It emphasized that the judgments in Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. and CCE, Bolpur vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries established that Circulars do not prevail over Supreme Court decisions. However, the Tribunal noted the unique circumstances in this case where assesses were led to believe in the exemption under the withdrawn Circular until Notification No. 4/2010-CE dated 27/02/10 amended the legislation, superseding the Circular despite the Supreme Court's ruling. 5. Considering the complexity of the situation, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit until 31st January 2014 or the disposal of the appeal, whichever comes earlier, to address the challenges faced by the appellant due to the evolving legal landscape and conflicting provisions. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the withdrawal of Circular No. 345, the impact of Supreme Court rulings on Board Circulars, and the implications of subsequent legislative amendments on exemption claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal complexities addressed by the Tribunal.
|
