Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 369 - AT - Central ExciseDeemed manufacturing - SSI Exemption - assessee put their brand name "The Heels" and also MRP - trading in shoes - purchasing of footwears in unit containers bearing brand name like Ben Sharman, Hitz, etc.. The shoes are received in unit containers with brand name declared on the containers but without any MRP. According to the department, in respect of these footwear, the respondent put their MRP sticker on the containers themselves - Held that:- The Commissioner (appeals) has held that the MRP stickers were being put on the footwear and not on the containers, and therefore, this activity would not amount to manufacture under section 2F (iii). However, even if it is accepted that the MRP stickers were being put on the containers and not on the footwear and the activity amounts to manufacture, in our view, since the brand name owners of the brand names affixed on the containers had not been identified in the sense that the statutory certificate of the ownership of the brand name of the person who had been alleged to be the owner of the brand names have not been produced by the Revenue, in view of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE-Cochin Vs. Geo Engineering Works [2003 (9) TMI 237 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] benefit of SSI exemption cannot be denied. There is no dispute that the sales turn over of the third category of footwear along with the sales turn over of the footwear bearing the respondent's own brand name was within the SSI exemption limit during each of the three financial year. In view of this without going into the question as to whether the activity of the respondent amounted to manufacture or not, we hold that the even if it is treated as manufacture, they would be eligible for SSI exemption, there would be no duty demand. - Decided against the revenue.
|