9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame that were registered or not of another person. In the present case there is no dispute that the goods namely bracelet manufactured by the appellant bears the brand name namely Timex, Titan and Sonata which are owned by another person namely M/s. Timex Groups India Ltd and M/s. Titan Industry Limited, therefore, the appellant in terms of para 4 is not eligible for exemption Notification No. 08/2003 CE. However, there is an exception provided in the notification under clause (a) of para 4 according to which if the goods is in the nature of component or part of any machinery or equipment or appliances and the same is cleared as original equipment in manufacture of the said machinery or equipment or appliances by following the procedure la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- The issue is of pure interpretation of notification and the goods have been cleared under the cover of invoices to organized companies. Therefore, there is no mala fide intention of any individual. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed on Shri Arvindbhai M Limbasiya under Rule 26 is not sustainable. Hence, penalty is set aside. The appeal of Sonic Chain Pvt Ltd is dismissed and appeal filed by Shri Arvindbhai M Limbasiya is allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. C.L. MAHAR Shri R.Subramanya, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chinery or equipment or appliances and secondly, the appellant have not followed the procedure which is required for the purpose of clearance of branded component or parts of any machinery or equipment or appliances, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the exemption in respect of branded goods as provided under Para 4(a) of Notification No.08/2023-CE. He submits that since the appellant s product was affixed admittedly with the brand name of other person i.e. Timex, Titan and Sonata, they are not eligible for SSI exemption. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the short issue to be decided is that whether the goods namely bracelet manufactured by the appellant be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of clearances of the specified goods for use as original equipment does not exceed rupees one hundred lakhs in the financial year 2002-2003 as calculated in the manner specified in paragraph 1, may submit a declaration regarding such use instead of following the procedure laid down in the said Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001; (b) where the specified goods bear a brand name or trade name of (i) the Khadi and Village Industries Commission; or (ii) a State Khadi and Village Industry Board; or (iii) the National Small Industries Corporation; or (iv) a State Small Industries Development Corporation; or (v) a State Small Industries Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bracelets the procedure laid down in the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 has not been complied with. Hence, the condition for exception provided for branded goods for extending SSI exemption 08/2003- CE has not been complied with. Therefore, in our considered view, the appellant is not entitled for SSI exemption Notification No. 08/2003- CE. 4.2 We also note that as per para 4 (a) the exception for branded goods was provided consciously for those cases where the goods are manufactured as a part and component of any machinery or equipment or appliances which are to be used only in the manufacture of said machinery or equipment or appliances. In other words thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the exemption, rather that case supports the contention of the revenue that the appellant manufacture brand name of another person are not eligible for SSI exemption. Therefore, the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vir Rubber is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 4.5 In the case of Otto Bilz (India) Pvt Ltd, the goods bearing the brand name of a foreign company were extended benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that the foreign company has assigned the brand name BILZ in favour of the assessee. In that case once the brand name is assigned, the assignee becomes the owner, then it cannot be said that the assessee is using the brand name of another person. Therefore, the ratio of judgment in the Otto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
