Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (4) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ose for substituting the word "affixing" by the word "bearing". Going by the consideration this Court held in Australian Foods (India) (P) Ltd. case [2013 (1) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT] that after this amendment in para 4 it was not necessary that there has to be affixation of the name or mark on the goods. - impugned order of the CEGAT is untenable and not in accordance with law - non-payment of duty by the respondent was bona fide act, having nurtured a belief that it was not liable to pay the excise duty on the goods - Therefore, while setting aside the order of the Tribunal, we restore the order of the Commissioner only insofar as it pertains to imposition of excise duty in the sum of ₹ 34,67,164/- and set aside the penalties impose .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Department. As per the said Notification small scale industries are allowed exemption in certain circumstances. We are, however, concerned with para 4 of the said Notification No.1/93 which denies this exemption under certain circumstances. Said para 4 reads as under: The exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this Notification: Provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods which are component parts of any machinery or equipment or appliances and cleared from a factory for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tled to the exemption under the aforesaid Notification. When the show cause notice was issued to the respondent to pay the excise duty, defence of the respondent was that the respondent was not affixing the said brand name TISCOG on the goods which were supplied by respondent to the parties from which he received the orders. It was stated that such a name was mentioned only in the invoices which were raised by the respondent. As mentioned above, this contention was not accepted by the Commissioner in his order. However, in appeal filed before the CEGAT, CEGAT has accepted the aforesaid plea of the respondent resulting into the quashing of the impugned demand as well as the penalties. Therefore, the only issue which is to be determined by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rade name of another person. The effect of this amendment is that if an SSI unit manufactures the branded goods for another person irrespective of whether the brand name owner himself is SSI unit or not, such goods shall not be eligible for the concession. Another implication of this amendment is that the requirement of affixation or brand name by the SSI unit has been changed and now the only condition is that the goods cleared by SSI unit bearing a brand name of another person shall not be eligible for the concession irrespective of the fact whether the brand name was affixed by the SSI unit or that, the input material used by the SSI unit was already affixed with brand name. It becomes clear from the reading of the aforesaid paras th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ame on the goods itself, a small scale industry would be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Notification. He has also referred the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur vs. Superex Industries, Bihar (2005) 4 SCC 207 wherein similar order passed by the Tribunal was upheld by this Court, albeit keeping in view the provisions of the unamended para 4. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the non-payment of duty by the respondent was bona fide act, having nurtured a belief that it was not liable to pay the excise duty on the goods. We, thus, find force in this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, while setting aside the order of the Tribunal, we restore the or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates