9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1985 under the brand name of their buyers. The buyers used the said Elastic Tapes for the manufacture of Jangia under their brand name. The dispute is as to whether the respondents are entitled to claim the benefit of small scale exemption notification. As per the Revenue, since they used the brand name of their buyers, they are not entitled the benefit of small scale exemption. On the other hand, the Commissioner has gone by the fact that such buyers further used the Elastic Tapes for the manufacture of Jangia under their brand name and the goods are not being traded in the open market. As such, following the Board s Circular No. 71/71/94-CX, dated 27-10-94 and the other decision of the Tribunal, he has held in favour of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority held that CBEC s clarification in the Circular No. 71/71/94-CX is not applicable in this case as the appellant did not submit any evidence in support of their claim. But I find that when the appellant submitted declaration under Rule 173B claiming exemption on the basis of above mentioned Circular, concerned Asstt. Commissioner never made any inquiry nor asked the appellant to submit evidence in support of their claim as provided in Rule 173B(3). Hence denial of exemption benefit for want of evidence has no ground. On the other hand, Department issued show cause notice alleging that the appellant was not eligible for S.S.I. exemption as per clarification given in CBEC Circular No. 50/50/94-CX as corrected by Circular No. 64/64/94-CX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name provision is not applicable for the purpose of denying S.S.I. exemption. I do not find any reason to disagree with the finding of my ld. colleague. 5. As against the above observations made by the appellate authority, the Revenue in their memo of appeal has not produced any evidence to show that the goods are being traded by the Respondents in the open market. It is seen that their buyers had placed on record an affidavit showing that Elastic Tapes are being consumed by them for further manufacture of their final product carrying their brand name. It is also seen that the Commissioner of Central Excise has dropped the proceedings for the subsequent period against the respondents. There is nothing in the Revenue s appeal to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
