Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur Versus M/s. Tubes & Structurals & Another

2015 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT

Entitlement of the excise exemption in terms of exemption Notification No.1/93 dated 28.2.1993 - denial on the ground that the respondent is using the brand name of M/s. TISCO Ltd. i.e. TISCOG - Held that:- It becomes clear that amendment was brought to deny the benefit of Notification to those SSI units which have been making use of branded good for another person irrespective of whether the brand name owner himself is SSI unit or not. It was also made abundantly clear here that the requirement .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as 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 imposed in the said order. - Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - Civil Appeal Nos. 7955-7956 of 2003 - Dated:- 11-3-2015 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman,JJ. For the Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, (hereinafter referred as 'the CEGAT'). By the judgment the CEGAT has allowed the appeal of the respondent herein and set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner Excise levying the excise duty in the sum of ₹ 34,67,164/-. Penalty of an identical amount is also imposed under the provisions of Sec. 11A (C) of the Central Excise Act. Penalty of ₹ 8.50 lakhs was imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es Board." It is not in dispute that the respondent is a small scale industry. However, it was denied the exemption by the Revenue invoking the provisions of para 4 above on the ground that the respondent is using the brand name of M/s. TISCO Ltd. i.e. TISCOG and therefore comes within the mischief of para 4. The relevant facts which are to be taken note of for this purpose are that M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (TISCO) has given authorization to the respondent vide the letter dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty on the premise that it was entitled 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 contenti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted above, is not more than res integra and has been settled by few judgments of this Court. It is not necessary to refer to all those judgments. Our purpose would be served in mentioning the judgment titled Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II vs. Australian Foods India (P) Ltd. (2013) 287 E.L.T. 385 (SC). In the said case the Court took note of the original para 4 in Notification No.1/93 dated 28.2.1993 where the words mentioned are "the exemption contained in this Notification shal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f clarification: 10. Part (iii) of Para J of the Budget Changes-1994-95 dealt with "Changes in the SSI schemes" explains the purpose of the amendment in the following words: "(iii) Brand name provision has been amended so as to provide that SSI concession shall not apply to the goods bearing the brand name or trade 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 own .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h brand name." It becomes clear from the reading of the aforesaid paras that amendment in para 4 in the manner mentioned above was brought to deny the benefit of Notification to those SSI units which have been making use of branded good for another person irrespective of whether the brand name owner himself is SSI unit or not. It was also made abundantly clear here that the requirement of affixation or brand name by the SSI unit was immaterial. That was the purpose for substituting the word .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version