Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (11) TMI 1508 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
- Eligibility for SSI Exemption Notification
- Submission of fresh evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals)
- Manufacturing on job work basis
- Duty liability and exemption under specific notifications

Eligibility for SSI Exemption Notification:
The case involved the respondent engaged in manufacturing Electronic Controllers for Air Conditioners/Chillers under the brand name of M/s Blue Star. The department contended that the goods, being branded, were not eligible for SSI Exemption Notifications. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand, leading to an appeal by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for a denovo order, which was challenged by the Revenue.

Submission of Fresh Evidence:
The Revenue argued that the fresh evidence submitted by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have been entertained, as these documents were not presented during the original order. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered documents related to job work transactions, leading to the remand order, which the Revenue contested as improper.

Manufacturing on Job Work Basis:
The respondent's advocate highlighted that the principal manufacturer sent materials under specific rules and notifications applicable to SSI units. The documents submitted were deemed crucial for determining whether the goods were manufactured on a job work basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for further examination by the adjudicating authority.

Duty Liability and Exemption under Specific Notifications:
The Tribunal's findings referenced previous judgments emphasizing that duty liability lies with the supplier in job work scenarios. The documents submitted by the respondent were deemed essential to establish whether the goods were manufactured and cleared on a job work basis, potentially making them eligible for exemption under specific notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision to remand the matter was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and disposing of the cross-objection.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals) for a denovo examination by the adjudicating authority based on the crucial documents submitted regarding job work transactions and the application of specific notifications for duty liability and exemption. The decision emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence and applying principles of natural justice in determining eligibility for exemptions and duty liabilities in manufacturing scenarios.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates