9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 on the goods manufactured having their own brand name, while on the branded products manufactured by them of other manufacturers, they discharged the duty liability as was applicable. The revenue issued show cause notices for confirmation of demand of duty on the entire clearances made by the respondents denying them the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 even to their own branded goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The respondents preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the representation made by the respondent, held as under :- The said SSI Notification 1/93 limits its applicability for compu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit of Notification No. 1/93. He submits that the provisions of Notification No. 1/93 are different than the provisions of Notification No. 175/86. It is his submission that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Intertec v. CCE, Ghaziabad as reported as 2001 (127) E.L.T. 609 (Tri.-LB) was considering the interpretation of very same Notification 1/93-C.E. It is his submission that the Larger Bench took a view that the assessee can pay duty in respect of their branded goods of other manufacturers and can also avail the benefit of exemption in respect of the goods, which are entitled for exemption. He submits that the facts of the case of Intertec and these cases are very similar and identical. He also draws our attention to the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtical blinds made of textile fabrics are entitled to the concessional duty as provided by Notification No. 1/93-C.E. As stated earlier, for the period from 1991-92 to 1993-94, Collector Meerut took the view that vertical blinds made of textile fabrics manufactured by the appellant were branded goods. This finding of the Collector was upheld by this Tribunal. No material or matrix was available with the Department to take a contrary view in relation to the period from April 1996 to October 1997 that the vertical blinds manufactured by the appellant were not branded articles. We are at a loss to understand how the adjudicating authority, an officer subordinate to the Collector, Meerut, ventured to take a decision contrary to those taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar of not taking the Modvat credit as contained in clause 2(iii) will not apply to the said branded goods and will only relates to the specified goods on which an assessee is entitled to avail the SSI exemption notification. Admittedly, no Modvat credit has been taken by the appellants in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of their own manufactured products and cleared after availing the exemption. As such, no merits are found in the revenue s case. We also note that the said issue stands decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Intertec v. CCE, Ghaziabad [2001 (127) E.L.T. 609 (Tri.-LB)] laying down that payment of duty by an assessee on the branded goods will not disentitle the other products from getting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
