Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Chhaparia Thermoplast (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Daman on 8 June, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
Appeal No.E/466/2008-DB
[Arising out of OIA No.KKS/38/DAMAN/2008, dt.11.02.008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Vapi]
M/s Chhaparia Thermoplast (I) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs
Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Daman Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: None For Respondent: Shri L. Patra, A.R. For approval and signature:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:08.06.2016 Order No. A/10507 / 2016, dt.08.06.2016 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This matter has been listed for hearing on 12.10.2015, 09.02.2016, 17.03.2016, 26.04.2016 and today i.e. 08.06.2016. None appeared for the Appellants nor there is any request for adjournment. Since the matter has been pending for more than eight years, the same is taken up for hearing and disposal after hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Plastic articles and other excisable goods. During the relevant period from April 2004 to March 2005, they have availed the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.9/2003, dt.01.03.2003. A Show Cause cum Notice was issued to them on 16.05.2005 for recovery of the duty short paid alleging wrong availment of the said Notification. The demand was dropped by the Adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Revenues appeal. Hence, the Assessee is in appeal before us.
3. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that while computing the aggregate value of clearances for the year 2003-2004, the Appellant had failed to include the clearances of the excisable goods bearing the brand name of others manufactured in their factory situated in a rural area. It is his contention that value of the said branded goods manufactured in rural area if considered, the aggregate value of the clearances for the year 2003-04 become Rs.3,47,55,088/- and hence, the Appellant is not eligible to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.9/2003 for the Financial Year 2004-2005. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that the language of the notification is very clear which, inter-alia, excludes the value of the goods bearing the brand name of others not manufactured in the rural area. In support, he has referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Paragon Polymer Products Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Hyderabad 2001 (265) ELT 121 (Tri-Bang).
3. We have considered the records of the case and also the submissions advanced by the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. we find that the issue to be determined is whether the value of goods bearing the brand name of another person manufactured in a rural area be included in the aggregate value of the clearances so as to extend the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.9/2003-CE, dt.01.03.2003. We find that more or less in similar circumstances, while considering the benefit of Notification No.8/2003-CE, dt.01.03.2003, this Tribunal in the case of Paragon Polymer Products Pvt. Ltd. Ltd (supra), examined the issue and held that the circumstances mentioned in Para 4 of the said Notification would be relevant in computing the aggregate value of the clearance and concluded that the value of branded goods manufactured in a rural area cannot be excluded. We find that undisputedly in the present case, the Appellant had manufactured the branded goods in rural area, hence, its value cannot be excluded in computation of aggregate value of clearance. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the reasoning of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in computing the aggregate value of the clearances under Clause (3) of the said notification.
4. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and consequently the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(P.M. Saleem) (Dr. D.M. Misra)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
4