9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the essential features require to be repeated. 2. The appellant manufactures soya chunks under the brand name of Gulab. The first dispute between the parties is as to when the appellant commenced manufacturing the product under the Gulab brand. This is relevant since the exemption claimed by the appellant under the Central Excise notification does not extend the benefit to products manufactured under a brand name not owned by the manufacturer. In other words, if a manufacturer produces the product which is marketed under a brand name not belonging to the manufacturer, the manufacturer would not be entitled to the exemption. 3. There is no dispute that the manufacture of the relevant goods commenced in 2002-03 and the appellant appears to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , since the appellant was entitled to an exemption, in the sense that it would be reimbursed the excise duty that it had paid, in view of the existing Central Excise notifications, the question of intending to evade duty could not have arisen since the appellant would have been reimbursed the excise duty paid for the relevant product. On behalf of the department it is submitted that it may not be absolutely correct to say that the entire quantum of the excise duty would be reimbursed to the manufacturer and the scheme was modified from time to time. According to the department, the excise duty component would be reimbursed upon deducting the cenvat credit already claimed. The department also says that at a subsequent stage, the extent of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the brand name of another. According to the appellant, it started manufacturing the soya chunks under the Gulab brand name with effect from December 1, 2006. The Appellate Tribunal has referred to the oral evidence of a regular customer of the appellant which appears to be a rather sweeping statement to the effect that the appellant has always been engaged in manufacturing soya chunks under the Gulab brand. The Appellate Tribunal placed great credence on such statement though there were no documents in support of the assertion nor any bill or voucher or the like relied upon by the department that would reveal that the appellant had manufactured soya chunks under the Gulab brand prior to December 1, 2006. The Appellate Tribunal also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Appellate Tribunal dated January 23, 2019 in the appeal arising out of the order-in-original of March 16, 2009. These issues cannot be conveniently addressed in the present proceedings which are conducted on summary basis on affidavit evidence. Further, as to whether a person is entitled to an exemption or not based on the geographical location of the manufacturing unit, is essentially question of fact that has to be ascertained. 13. Accordingly, the order impugned dated January 23, 2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal with a request to render the opinion on the three key aspects indicated herein and on any other issue that may be relevant for the purpose of adjudication. The Tribunal is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
