9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame of M/s. Kissan Products. On this point, the Commissioner has noted that the assessee has taken the assignment of the brand's name in their favour and on that ground the SSI benefit cannot be denied. In this regard, he has also followed the ratio of Tribunal Ruling rendered in the case of Charkha Soap v. CCE reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 333. However, he has proceeded to deny the benefit on a different ground that in the previous year, M/s. Kissan Products from whom the assessee had taken the factory on lease had crossed the clearances figures of Rs. 1.50 crores. He has also proceeded to add marketing service charges collected by M/s. McDowell and Company in the assessments of the assessee to hold that the clearance figures has crossed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ependent and hence the previous clearance value of M/s. Kissan Product cannot be taken into consideration to deny the benefit of the notification. In this regard, she further relied on the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE v. Power and Control reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 662 (T) which has held that the value of clearances of another unit cannot be added with the assessees clearances. 4. The learned SDR reiterated the departmental view. 5. On a careful consideration, we are agreeable with the points raised by the Counsel. The Commissioner in the impugned order has clearly held that the brand name has been assigned to the assessee and therefore they should be considered as an independent manufacturer. He has also held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited Case (supra), the cost of advertisement of downstream product is not includable in the assessable value of base material, even though it may indirectly enhance the sales of the base material also. It is undisputed fact that the value of the clearances of the assessee was Rs. 36,61,150/-, after availing exemption for the first clearance of Rs. 30 lakhs. The assessee had paid the duty of Rs. 1,64,724/- for the balance clearances, hence there is no case made out for denying the benefit of the notification in question. 6. In view of the conclusions arrived by us the impugned order is not legal and proper and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
