Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 207 - CESTAT CHENNAIExtended period of limitation - suppression of facts - SSI Exemption - Held that: - As per the provisions of small-scale exemption notification the same is not available in case the goods are manufactured with the brand name of others. In the present case, the appellants never disclosed this fact to the Revenue. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs M/s. Rampty (India) Ltd [2009 (6) TMI 483 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] has dealt with an identical situation where the brand name belonging to another person was being used with simultaneous availment of SSI exemption. Tribunal granted the benefit on the point of limitation by observing that though the fact of use of others brand name was not disclosed in the classification list but inasmuch as the issue was of interpretation and contentious, no malafide would be attributed to the assessee. Accordingly, relief was granted by the Tribunal on the point of time bar. We find favour with the appellant's plea of, re-quantification of the demand by extending the benefit of cum-duty and direct the lower authorities to re-quantify the demand accordingly. If the demand is quantified on the lower aside, penalty would also get reduced to that amount - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|