9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 10,82,927.00 was confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 11,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. A show cause notice was issued alleging that the benefit of S.S.I scheme as per Notification No. 8/2000, dated 1-3-2000 was not available to the appellant as they manufactured 'Narrow Woven Fabrics-Elastic tape' which bore brand name of other persons, as per Board's Circular No. 50/50/94-CX., dated 19-8-1994 and 66/66/94-CX., dated 10-10-1994. A demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 10,82,927.00 was also raised and a penalty under Rule 173Q was also proposed. The Adjudicating Authority found that the clarification given by the Board in their circular No. 71/71/94-CX., dated 27-10-1994 is not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d classification list for the first time on 1-4-1999 for the year 1999-2000 claiming exemption under S.S.I. scheme. The department never raised any objection or made any inquiry. On 1-4-2000 they again submitted classification list for the year 2000-2001 claiming same exemption. The Department remained silent and never asked for any evidence in support of their claim. After more than one year the show cause notice was issued denying exemption on the basis of CBEC Circular No. 50/50/94-CX. as corrected by Circular No. 66/66/94-CX. Even in the Show Cause Notice there was no allegation that they did not submit any evidence. But the Adjudicating Authority held that circular No. 71/71/94-CX., dated 27-10-1994 is not applicable in their case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Goods not being branded final products in themselves brand name not used in 'course of trade' - Exemption not deniable. The appellant also referred to the order of Commissioner of C.Ex. Kol-I No. CCE/Kol-I/No. 26/2002, dated 18-4-2002 in their own similar case for the latter period where it was held that benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2000 & 8/2001 was not deniable as per CBEC Circular No. 71/71/94-C.E. The appellant also submitted certificate of their buyers to the effect that branded elastic tapes were manufactured as per their direction with their brand name and the goods were exclusively sold to them for their own manufacture of 'Jangia.' The goods were not sold in open market as such. 5. I have gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn use or in the manufacture of different goods then the provision of Brand name cannot be applied for denial of S.S.I. exemption. In the case laws referred to by the appellant Hon'ble CEGAT held the same view. The Adjudicating Authority held that CBEC's clarification in the Circular No. 71/71/94-CX. is not applicable in this case as the appellant did not submit any evidence in support of their claim. But I find that when the appellant submitted declaration under Rule 173B claiming exemption on the basis of above mentioned circular concerned Asstt. Commissioner never made any inquiry nor asked the appellant to submit evidence in support of their claim as provided in Rule 173B(3). Hence denial of exemption benefit for want of evidence has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
