Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 749 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of SSI Exemption - User of brand name of others / logo of other company - Notification No.1/93-CE, dated 28.02.1993 - Held that:- respondent were using the brand name of other person for their chemicals in textile industry, whereas, the brand name owner was producing chemicals for leather industry. The Commissioner (Appeals) following various Tribunal decisions observed that the brand name belonging to other is used on different goods that was produced by the brand name owner, and SSI exemption cannot be denied. - Supreme Court, while dealing with the SSI Exemption Notification No.1/93-CE, as applicable in the present case had observed that the assessee would not be entitled to get the benefit of SSI exemption irrespective of fact that the use is of different goods or same goods - Decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TRICHY Versus RUKMANI PAKKWELL TRADERS [2004 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed. Hence, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be maintained. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that they pleaded before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant grounds of appeal on limitation before the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the matter on merit without considering the limitation aspect. It is noticed that the Adjudicating authority also did not consider the submissions of the respondent as demand is barred by limitation. - Impugned order is set aside - Order of Adjudicating authority restored subject to that the Adjudicating authority would examine the demand of duty on the limitation aspect on the basis of the facts and case law as submitted by the department as well as the party - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|