9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding no. 9021 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985". 2. The dispute pertains to the period from 1986-87 to February 1995 to March 1995. The two orders in original covering period 1986-87 to 31.03.1989 deal with allegation that the appellant manufactured and cleared goods without payment of central excise duty and without maintaining the records. The remaining seven order-in-originals deal with allegation that the appellant has availed benefit of SSI exemption notification no.175/1986 dated 01.03.1986 as well as 01/1993 dated 01.03.1993 irregularly and cleared goods bearing the brand name of their various collaborators namely M/s. Rob Mathys Switzerland (Foreign Collaborator). The department was of the view that the appellant was not eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under CTH 9021 is very wide whereas the Sl. No.11 of the notification is restricted only to "artificial limbs and rehabilitation for the handicap". 7. The goods manufactured by the appellant include various implants used in surgical interventions which are basically used in ortho surgery. The items which are commonly known as rehabilitation aids for the handicap can be understood to refer to the items such as wheelchair, etc. which are needed for the rehabilitation of handicapped persons. From the records, we find that the All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Government of India had given their opinion regarding whether the appellant's goods are covered by the notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the contentions of the appellants and as a result the appeal is rejected." 9. We are of the view that the Hon'ble Apex Court's observation are relevant for the present case. By following the decision of the Apex Court cited above, we conclude that the appellant will not be eligible for the benefit under notification no.71/86 for the impugned period. Consequently, duty demand pertains to the period 1986-87 (upto 21.03.1989) is upheld along with penal consequences, 10. The rest of the demands have been raised by denying the SSI exemption to the appellant. Revenue was of the view that the benefit is to be denied on account of the fact that the appellant has manufactured goods bearing the brand name of their foreign collaborator. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
