9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Final Order No.65/12 dt. 30.1.2012 allowed the Revenue's appeal confirming the demand to the extent of Rs. 7,02,609/- along with interest and waived the penalty imposed on the respondent-assessee. Against the final order of the Tribunal, the respondent-assessee filed C.M.A.No.1170 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Hon'ble High Court in their order dt. 25.6.2015 set aside the Tribunal's order dt. 30.1.2012 and remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the case afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is restored and taken up for hearing. 3. The Ld. A.R for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal and submits that as per the erstwhile rules, assessee cannot avail both SSI exemption as well as Modvat credit and submits that in the case of Nebulae Health Care Ltd.,this Tribunal has relied Tribunal's decision in Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs Collector 1993 (63) ELT 759 (Tribunal) which was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Food Products (supra). She relied the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Kamani Foods Vs CCE Patna - 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identical issue, in the case of Nebulae Health Care Ltd. Vs CC Chennai (supra), this Tribunal after taking into consideration the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Commissioner Vs Ramesh Food Products (supra) and the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Kamani Foods Vs Collector (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee. We find that the Revenue preferred appeal against this Tribunal order and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order dt. 27.10.2015 in Civil Appeal No.2789/2007 in the case of CCE Chennai Vs Nebulae Health Care Ltd. dismissed the Revenue appeal and upheld this Tribunal's order. The relevant paragraph of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order is reproduced as under :- "17) A holistic reading of the Notification, in the light of the other paragraphs, brings into focus the overall scheme. It, inter alia, provides that the clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of third parties which are ineligible for grant of this exemption, for the purposes of determining aggregate value of clearances for home consumption, are not to be included. These Notifications also make it clear that the exemption contained therein is not to apply to the spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned decisions in both these appeals has decided the issue correctly. Admittedly, in respect of home production, the assessee had not availed the benefit of two options simultaneously as no CENVAT credit is claimed in respect of those goods. While doing so, the Tribunal has taken note of the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Food Products case and rightly analysed the same. We reproduce following discussion in the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2006 of the Tribunal (which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 2789 of 2007): "7. The provisions in the relevant Notifications to compute aggregate value of clearances mandate that the clearances of goods bearing brand name or trade name of another persons which are ineligible for the grant of exemption shall not be taken into account in determining the aggregate value of clearances. Therefore, value of clearances of goods bearing brand name of third parties without availing the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003 is not reckoned for computing clearance value of rupees one hundred lakhs in any year for exemption benefit. From these clauses contained in the relevant Notifications, it is clear that goods bearing brand name of third pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2 The above condition though present in the Notifications that replaced the scheme of duty benefit for SS! units contained in Notfn. 175/86, value of such goods are specifically excluded from the computation of aggregate value in these Notfns. Clearances of goods bearing brand name of third parties is thus not governed by the Notfns issued for the benefit of SSI units. xxxxxx 9.1 All the twin Notifications contain the following identical conditions excluding the goods bearing brand name of third parties from the purview of both the Notifications: "3. For the purpose of determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumptions, the following clearances shall not be taken into account, namely: (a) xxxxxx (b) clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of another person, which are ineligible for the grant of this exemption in terms of paragraph 4 below. 4. The exemption contained in the Notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person, except in the following cases...." The exclusions mentioned are components manufactured for OE manufacturers, goods manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
