9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the brand name of 'HLL" and accordingly filed declaration to avail Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of branded goods belonging to another person which is outside the scope of SSI exemption under Notfn 8/99. - respondents are eligible for Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods bearing the brand name of "HLL" - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.E/429/2003 - FINAL ORDER No.41505/2015 - Dated:- 3-11-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member And Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Derrick Sam, Advocate ORDER Per R. Periasami Pursuant to the order of Hon'ble High Court, Madras in C.M.A. No.1170 of 2015 M.P. No.1 of 2015, the appeal is taken up for fresh hearing and decision. 2. The brief facts of the case relates to simultaneous availment of SSI exemption and also availing Modvat credit on the goods bearing the brand name of others. The adjudicating authority in his order dt. 25.10.2015 dropped the proceedings. Against this, Revenue preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The LAA dismissed Revenue's appeal and upheld th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealth Care Ltd. Vs CC Chennai 2007 (209) ELT 125 (Tri.-Chennai) on identical issue allowed the appeal and distinguished the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Commissioner Vs Ramesh Food Products 2004 (174) ELT 310 (S.C). He further submits that Revenue preferred civil appeal against the above Tribunal's order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgement dt. 27.10.2015 dismissed the Revenue civil appeal 2789 of 2007. He produced a copy of the said Supreme Court order and submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld this Bench order and pleaded for rejecting the Revenue appeal. 5. After hearing the submissions of both sides, we find that the issue relates to simultaneous availment of SSI exemption and modvat credit. The adjudicating authority and the appellate authority have clearly discussed the issue in detail and held that respondents have availed exemption on the goods pertaining to assessee whereas they paid full excise duty on the goods bearing the brand name of HLL which are manufactured on job work basis and allowed the benefit and Revenue preferred the present appeal. As per Notfn 8/99 as amended fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (b) such products bearing brand names or trade names of third parties, even if manufactured by the SSI Unit, are not eligible for any exemption and excise duty thereupon has to be paid. Once we understand the scheme of the Notifications in the aforesaid perspective, which according to us is the only manner in which it has to be understood, it becomes apparent that so far as manufacture of branded goods of third party on job work basis by the SSI Unit is concerned, they are to be dealt with differently in the sense that they do not come within the ambit of exemption on which normally excise duty, as per the provisions of the Act, is payable. As a sequitur, it also follows that once excise duty is paid by the manufacturer on such branded goods manufactured, the brand name whereof belongs to another person, on job work basis, the SSI Unit would be entitled to CENVAT/MODVAT credit on the inputs which were used for manufacture of such goods as on those inputs also excise duty was paid. To put it otherwise, these branded goods manufactured by the SSI Units meant for third parties are regulated by the normal provisions of excise law and will have no bearing or relevance insofar as avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee to avail benefits of both the options simultaneously. Therefore an SSI unit availing full exemption as per the Notfn. No. 175/86 in respect of certain specified goods could not also avail the modvat benefit in respect of certain other specified goods. 8.1 Notfn No. 175/86 dated 01.03.1986 extended concessional rate of duty on first clearances of specified goods of value of rupees seven and half lakhs while availing modvat credit on inputs or full exemptions benefit for such goods without the benefit of modvat credit. The Notfn also provided lesser benefit for further clearances in excess of the above aggregate value under both the options for higher slabs/aggregate value of clearances. In computing the aggregate value of clearances for the purposes of exemption under both the options, the notification did not require that the goods bearing brand name of third parties should be excluded. The following explanations, inter-alia, governed computation of the above aggregate value for the Notfn. Explanation IV For the purposes of this notification, where the specified goods manufactured by a manufacturer, are affixed with a brand name or trade name (registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on incorrect reasoning. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 19) We, accordingly, uphold the view of the Tribunal in both the decisions, result whereof is to dismiss these appeals. Ordered accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 6. The ratio of the apex court decision squarely applies to this case wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after distinguishing their own case in the case of Ramesh Foods upheld this Tribunal's order. In the present case, appellants have rightly paid excise duty on the goods bearing the brand name of 'HLL and accordingly filed declaration to avail Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of branded goods belonging to another person which is outside the scope of SSI exemption under Notfn 8/99. By respectfully following the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement (supra), we hold that the respondents are eligible for Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods bearing the brand name of HLL . Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the Revenue's appeal is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
