9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case had observed that the assessee would not be entitled to get the benefit of SSI exemption irrespective of fact that the use is of different goods or same goods - Decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TRICHY Versus RUKMANI PAKKWELL TRADERS [2004 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed. Hence, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be maintained. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that they pleaded before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant grounds of appeal on limitation before the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the matter on merit without c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.1993. The Central Excise officers during the visit of the respondent s factory verification found that the respondent used the emblem of a man riding on a horse with a word CHEMPON , which is printed on the invoices and also in the containers. It is alleged that the said logo is owned by M/s. Chempon Alloys Pvt. Ltd. A show-cause notice dated 04.08.1997was issued proposing to deny benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No.1/93-CE and to demand duty of ₹ 6,83,542/- along with interest and penalty for the period 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the ground that they misused the brand name and emblem of another person. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 4,32,853/- and imposed penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Rule 173 Q o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to this conclusion we are afraid that the Tribunal has done something which is not permissible to be done in law. It is settled law that Exemption Notifications have to be strictly construed. They must be interpreted on their own wording. Wordings of some other Notification are of no benefit in construing a particular Notification. Clause 4 of this Notification and the explanation (set out hereinabove) make it clear that the exemption will not apply if the specified goods (i.e. scented supari) bears a brand or trade name of another person. Neither in clause 4 of the Notification nor in Explanation IX is it provided that the specified goods must be the same or similar to the goods for which the brand name or trade name is registered. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent as demand is barred by limitation. 5. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the following decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal on the limitation aspect as under:- (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (270) E.L.T.643 (S.C.). (ii) Union Quality Plastic Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Vapi reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T.222 (Tri.-LB). (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs Ramply (India) Ltd. reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T.31 (Bom.). 6. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order of the Adjudicating authority on merit, subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
