9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of such goods – Held that - The appellant’s case is not one of simultaneous availment of exemption and Modvat credit. It is rather a case of availment of exemption in respect of goods covered by SSI Notification 8/98-C.E. and availment of Modvat benefit in respect of goods lying outside the purview of the Exemption Notification – Exemption allowed – demand of duty and penalty set aside - E/1518/2001 - A/866/2008-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 19-11-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) Ms. Aparna, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri H.B. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Care Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, 2007 (209) E.L.T. 125 (Tri.-Chennai) also supports their case. Ld. SDR relies on the Apex Court's judgment in CCE v. Ramesh Food Products, 2004 (174) E.L.T. 310 (S.C.). In her rejoinder, the ld. Counsel submits that the case of Ramesh Food Products is factually distinguishable as found by the Tribunal in Nebulae Healthcare case. 2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods specified for SSI benefit. Those goods which were cleared under their own brand name and those cleared without any brand name were so cleared without payment of duty under the aforesaid Notification No. 8/98-C.E., while those goods which were cleared under the brand name of another person were so cleared on pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods covered by para 4 of Notification 1/93-C.E., the SSI unit was required to exercise option. The assessee in that case had also cleared some finished goods on payment of duty by availing Modvat credit on inputs as these finished goods were affixed with another's brand name. Para (4) of the Notification barred SSI units from availing exemption in respect of such branded goods. The question arose whether the assessee was required to elect to avail exemption in respect of their unbranded goods and not to avail it in respect of the branded goods. It was held that any option to be exercised would only be for the goods covered by Notification 1/93. The goods cleared under another's brand name were held to be not covered by the Notification. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . From these clauses contained in the relevant notifications, it is clear that goods bearing brand name of third parties were not eligible for exemption contained in Notification No. 8/2003. Identical provision existed in Notification No. 9/2003 where the option of availment of modvat benefit and payment of a concessional rate of duty was prescribed. Goods bearing brand name of third parties are therefore excluded from the exemption in Notification No. 9/2003 as well. The assessee has not availed the benefit contained in either of the notifications 9/99 (sic) [8/99] and 9/99, 8/2000 and 9/2000 etc. in respect of goods bearing brand name of third parties." All the SSI notifications considered by the bench in Nebulae Healthcare case contain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
