9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h to five years. Apropos such ground, it is the contention of the appellant that since the appellant set up its manufacturing unit in the North-East and was entitled to complete exemption or refund pursuant to the notification No.32/1999 dated July, 8 1999, there could never have been any intention on its part to evade excise duty since whatever it may have paid it would have recovered in terms of the notification of 1999. SSI Exemption - use of brand name of other person - Gulab brand - N/N. 8/2003 dated March 1, 2003 - appellant has been insisting from the stage of its reply to the show-cause notice of April 4, 2008 that the Gulab brand which has been manufactured by the appellant has been only on and after December 1, 2006 and for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging an order of the Tribunal passed in respect of an order-in-original dated March 16, 2009. There is no dispute that the appellant started manufacturing the relevant goods in the year 2002-2003 and by the end of financial year 2002-2003 its turnover was minimal and it could have claimed exemption as an SSI unit since the turnover did not exceed ₹ 1 crore. However, the turnover was well in excess of ₹ 1 crore for the next three financial years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. It appears that it was only in 2006 that the appellant made enquiries as to whether its relevant goods would be subject to excise duty and made a representation as to the nature of its relevant product to the excise authorities, whereupon the excise autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denied on the ground that the appellant manufactured a product under a brand name of another person. In terms of the relevant notification No.8/2003 dated March 1, 2003 an assessee unit loses the benefit under the notification if it manufactures the brand of another. However, the appellant has been insisting from the stage of its reply to the show-cause notice of April 4, 2008 that the Gulab brand which has been manufactured by the appellant has been only on and after December 1, 2006 and for the period prior to December 1, 2006 it was not manufacturing its product under any brand name. In the order-in-original dated March 16, 2009 the Commissioner has referred to the statements of the three persons. In the first of the statements, a reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
