2016 (8) TMI 1017 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - Brand name - Whether the goods on which the full rate of duty was paid on sale to particular manufacturers and not treaded in the open market, to be traded as branded goods with in the meaning of brand name defined in the SSI exemption under notification 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.03 - Held that - in the stay Order No. 162/07/-EX dated 09.02.2007 passed in this appeal reported in 2007 (2) TMI 674 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , a prima-facie view was taken that the assessments of goods during the year 2003-04 has become final and it is not open to revenue to contend that goods assessed to full rate of duty as branded goods in 2003-04 have changed their Character and they became un-branded. The revenue has not advanced any arguments against the said prima-facie view of this Tribunal. Therefore, the said prima-facie view has attained finality as a result the impugned Order in Appeal is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for SSI exemption under notification 9/2003-CE
- Inclusion of goods on which full duty was paid in the value of clearance
- Time bar for the demand raised
- Reopening of assessments without following due process

Eligibility for SSI exemption under notification 9/2003-CE:
The case involved a dispute where the appellant, engaged in manufacturing C.R. Strips, availed benefits of SSI exemption under a specific notification. The revenue contended that the goods on which full duty was paid were not branded goods, affecting the eligibility for the exemption. The original authority relied on a Circular and upheld the demand, leading to an appeal by the appellant. The appellate tribunal considered the arguments and held that the assessments of goods during the relevant year had become final, preventing the revenue from changing the character of the goods retroactively. As a result, the tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

Inclusion of goods on which full duty was paid in the value of clearance:
The appellant argued that including goods on which full duty was paid in the total clearance value was not permitted under the exemption notification. The tribunal considered the contentions and noted that the revenue's attempt to treat the goods as unbranded without following due process of appeal was unsustainable. The tribunal referred to a prima facie view taken in a previous stay order, which concluded that the assessments of goods for the relevant year had attained finality. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief.

Time bar for the demand raised:
The appellant contended that the demand raised was time-barred as it was issued after the expiration of the time limit for filing appeals against the finalization of returns. The tribunal, while considering the arguments, focused on the issue of assessments becoming final and held that the revenue had no authority to treat the goods as unbranded after the assessments had concluded. This led to the tribunal setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

Reopening of assessments without following due process:
The appellant raised concerns about the revenue reopening assessments without following the process of review and filing an appeal. The tribunal considered this argument in conjunction with the issue of assessments becoming final. It noted that the revenue's attempt to change the character of the goods without proper appeal procedures was unsustainable. Referring to a previous prima facie view, the tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief, if applicable.