Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

R.A. Somani, Jindal Sanitary Works Versus CCE, Delhi-I

2015 (3) TMI 1085 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of SSI Exemption - use of customer's brand name - bonafide belief - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- there was also Boards Circular No.71/71/94-CX dated 27.10.1994 to the same effect. It is only in 2005 the Apex Court in respect of appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal judgment in the case of Kohinoor Elastic P. Ltd. vs. CCE Indore (2001 (9) TMI 1133 - CESTAT NEW DELHI), reversed the Tribunalís judgment holding that in such case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the appellantís Counsel, the duty demand for the normal limitation period is less than ₹ 5.00 Lakhs, and this fact is not disputed by the ld. DR. In view of this, we hold that the amount of ₹ 5.00 Lakhs already paid by the appellant is sufficient for hearing of the appeal, and the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty demand, interest and penalty has to be waived. As regards the stay application of Shri R.S. Somani is concerned, he is an Accountant of HSWIL, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cise Stay Application No.E/S/54209 & 54310/2014 in Excise Appeal No.E/53773 & 53873/2014-EX[DB] - STAY ORDER NO. 50924-50925/2015 - Dated:- 2-3-2015 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) And Mr.S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri. Prem Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri.Yashpal Sharma, DR ORDER PER: RAKESH KUMAR M/s.Jindal Sanitary Works (hereinafter referred to as JSW) manufacture EWC seat, bath tubs and mirrors for supply to M/s.Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Indust .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

SSI exemption. It is on this basis that show cause notice dated 05.07.2002 was issued to M/s. JSW for demand of duty of ₹ 28,09,185/- for the period from 1997-98 to 2001-02 by invoking extended period under proviso to section 11A(1). The SCN also demanded interest on this duty and proposed imposition of penalty on JSW under section 11AC and also penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules on Shri R.S. Somani, Accountant of HSWIL. The Additional Commissioner vide order in original No. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

along with stay applications. 2. Heard both sides in respect of stay applications. 3. Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that during the period of dispute, there was a Board Circular No.71/71/1994-CX dated 27.10.1994 clarifying that when the use of the Customers brand-name is in respect of Original equipment parts which are further used by the customer for manufacturing of the final products, the bar of brand-name would not be applicable for the purpose of av .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 2005 (188) ELT 3 (SC), that in view of this, longer limitation period under proviso to section 11A (1) would not be applicable in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Continental Foundation Joint venture vs. CCE reported in 2007 (216) ELT-177(SC) that duty demand during normal limitation period is less than 5.00 Lakhs while the appellant have already paid ₹ 5.00 Lakhs which stands appropriated by the Additional Commissioners order and hence, the amount already paid by the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y be stayed. 4. Shri Yashpal Sharma, the ld. DR opposed the stay applications by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. During the period of dispute, there were a series of judgments of the Tribunal holding that when a manufacturer availing SSI exemption manufactures some goods by affixing the brand-name of his customer and the customer uses those goods for manufacture of its finished products, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such cases, the SSI exemption would not be available. Thus, during the period of dispute, in view of the Board s Circular and the various judgments of the Tribunal, the appellant had a bonafide belief that they would be eligible for SSI exemption, even if, they cleared the goods to M/s. Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd. after affixing HSWIL brand name Hindware on the goods. In view of this, prima-facie the longer limitation period under proviso to section 11 A(1) would not be applicabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version