Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 454 - HC - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of brand name of others - entitlement of area based exemption or not - time limitation - whether demand could have been made at all, particularly in respect of the period more than a year prior to the date of the demand - HELD THAT:- The department points out that not every manufacturer in Meghalaya would be entitled to the exemption by way of reimbursement or otherwise. In such context, several notifications published by the Central Excise authorities have been relied upon to demonstrate that the initial scheme was restricted to certain areas of Assam and Tripura and, later, designated places in Meghalaya were also included. According to the department, the manufacturing unit of the appellant is not located within any area designated by the applicable notification for the appellant to claim exemption by way of reimbursement - This aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration, whether in the course of the order-in-original being passed or in the appellate order of the Tribunal. This is a question of fact on which there can be no two opinions and a physical verification is necessary to ascertain whether the manufacturing unit of the appellant falls within the area designated in the applicable notification for the appellant to be entitled to exemption by way of reimbursement. Disqualification of the appellant to be entitled to exemption on the ground that the appellant manufactured the product under the brand name of another - HELD THAT:- When a person claims a benefit under any government scheme and the authorities seek to deny the eligibility of such person to obtain such benefit, the onus is on the authorities to demonstrate why the person would not be entitled to the benefit. As noticed above, it has been the consistent stand of the appellant that it did not manufacture the Gulab brand soya chunks prior to December 1, 2006. It was, thus, incumbent on the department to deny the appellant exemption for the period prior to December 1, 2006 only upon cogent material being produced in such regard, whether by way of bills or vouchers or unimpeachable statements or otherwise. Entitlement of exemption - HELD THAT:- The wording of the applicable notification exempts a manufacturing unit as an SSI till such time it attains a turnover of ₹ 1 crore. In the present case, the initial turnover in 2003-04 was extremely low and same picked up only in 2004-05. In the event the appellant was entitled to exemption as claimed, it requires to be ascertained when the appellant’s manufacturing unit exceeded the turnover of ₹ 1 crore for the excise duty to be claimed only thereafter - the three key aspects of the matter have not been addressed in the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated January 23, 2019 in the appeal arising out of the order-in-original of March 16, 2009. These issues cannot be conveniently addressed in the present proceedings which are conducted on summary basis on affidavit evidence. Further, as to whether a person is entitled to an exemption or not based on the geographical location of the manufacturing unit, is essentially question of fact that has to be ascertained. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal with a request to render the opinion on the three key aspects indicated herein and on any other issue that may be relevant for the purpose of adjudication - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|