Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 384 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - Valuation - N/N. 9/2002-CE or 9/2003-CE - The contention of the Revenue is that value of goods cleared to M/s Director Transport, UT, Chandigarh and M/s Chief General Manager, DTC, New Delhi, are to be included for determining aggregate value of ₹ 1 Crore and duty to be discharged @ 16% after crossing the value of clearance of ₹ 1 crore - Held that: - the clearance of bearing a brand name and trade name for other person is not applicable for grant of exemption Notification in terms of para 4. Explanation defines the brand and trade name which says that the brand name and trade name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some perod using such name or mark - the appellant has put mark of M/s Director Transport, UT, Chandigarh and M/s Chief General Manager, DTC, New Delhi i.e. CTU/DTC, therefore, its brand name of another person which is not includable in the clearance under Notification No. 9/2002 for computing total clearance. It is not intention of the notification that the said branded goods are be used in the course of trade and the same is clear from the language of the notification itself. In that circumstances, on merits, we hold that the clearance made to M/s Director Transport, UT, Chandigarh and M/s Chief General Manager, DTC, New Delhi are not includable in the value of the clearance made by the appellant in terms of N/N. 9/2002 or 9/2003. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the appellant were regularly filed their returns showing the clearance made to DTC or CTU and paying duty on higher rate on the said goods was in the knowledge of the department. As the activity of clearance made by the appellant were in the knowledge of the Revenue, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|