TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Technical) Shri. Naveen Mullick, Advocate - for the appellant Shri. H. Singh, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the benefit of exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 has been denied. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing goods in their own brand as well as in the name of others. The goods cleared in their own brand name, the appellant is availing SSI Exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and with the branded goods for others, the appellant is availing cenvat credit on inputs and clearing the same on payment of duty. The Revenue is of the view that the appellant is manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same time availed the benefit of Modvat/Cenvat credit as well. Thus, to put it succinctly, the real issue is as to whether availing the benefit of Modvat/Cenvat credit in respect of branded goods of third parties manufactured by the assessees on job work basis, disentitles them from availing the benefit of the aforesaid Notifications 17. A holistic reading of the Notification, in the light of the other paragraphs, brings into focus the overall scheme. It, inter alia, provides that the clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of third parties which are ineligible for grant of this exemption, for the purposes of determining aggregate value of clearances for home consumption, are not to be included. These Notifications also make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods of third party on job work basis by the SSI Unit is concerned, they are to be dealt with differently in the sense that they do not come within the ambit of exemption on which normally excise duty, as per the provisions of the Act, is payable. As a sequitur, it also follows that once excise duty is paid by the manufacturer on such branded goods manufactured, the brand name whereof belongs to another person, on job work basis, the SSI Unit would be entitled to Cenvat/Modvat credit on the inputs which were used for manufacture of such goods as on those inputs also excise duty was paid. To put it otherwise, these branded goods manufactured by the SSI Units meant for third parties are regulated by the normal provisions of excise law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained in Notification No. 8/2003. Identical provision existed in Notification No. 9/2003 where the option of availment of Modvat benefit and payment of a concessional rate of duty was prescribed. Goods bearing brand name of third parties are therefore excluded from the exemption in Notification No. 9/2003 as well. The assessee has not availed the benefit contained in either of the Notifications 8/99 and 9/99, 8/2000 and 9/2000 etc. in respect of goods bearing brand name of third parties. 8. We find that the impugned order also seeks support of the ratio of Ramesh Food Products case decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court considered the options available to the SSI units clearing specified go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall not, merely by reason of that fact, be deemed to have been manufactured by such other manufacturer or trader. 8.2 The above condition though present in the Notifications that replaced the scheme of duty benefit for SSI units contained in Notfn. 175/86, value of such goods are specifically excluded from the computation of aggregate value in these Notfns. Clearances of goods bearing brand name of third parties is thus not governed by the Notfns. issued for the benefit of SSI units. xx xx xx 9.1 All the twin Notifications contain the following identical conditions excluding the goods bearing brand name of third parties from the purview of both the Notifications : 3. For the purpose of determining the aggregate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad correctly availed the exemption under the relevant Notfns. and the impugned order is passed on incorrect reasoning. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 19. We, accordingly, uphold the view of the Tribunal in both the decisions, result whereof is to dismiss these appeals. Ordered accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 5. Considering the fact that the issue has already been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court, in the case of Nebulae Health Care Ltd. wherein it has been held that the goods cleared with the brand name of others on payment of duty are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. In that case, the appellants are entitled for benefit of exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
