Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. S M Rubber Mills on 11 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 3240 of 2005- Ex(DB)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 249/CE/CHD/2005 dated 11.7.2005 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, (Appeals) Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants
Chandigarh
Vs.
M/s. S M Rubber Mills Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Shweta Bector, AR for the Appellants Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical Date of Hearing /Decision: 11.7.2014 ORDER NO . FO/ 52917 /2014-Ex(Br) Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has rejected the Revenues appeal inasmuch as the order of original adjudicating authority was in favour of the assessee, Revenue has further referred the present appeal.
2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of rubber tubes in the brand name of Santro and was availing the small scale exemption notification. Revenue entertained a view that since the brand name santro is being used by M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. in respect of motor vehicles being manufactured by them, the appellant is not entitled to use the same and consequently the benefit of small scale exemption notification. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuing the show cause notice dated 14.1.04 raising demand of duty of Rs.8,78,459/- for the period 16.1.99 to 3.7.2002. On adjudication, the original adjudicating authority held the demand to be barred by limitation and vacated the show cause notice.
3. Being aggrieved with the said order, Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the appellate authority rejected the Revenues appeal on merits as also on limitation. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.
4. We find that demand is admittedly raised by invoking the longer period of limitation. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.
5. We find that demand is admittedly raised by invoking the longer period of limitation. During the relevant period, the law was not very clear and there were decisions of the higher Courts laying down that if the brand name belongs to two different excisable products, the same would not be hit by exclusion clause of the small same exemption. One such reference can be made to Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of CCE Chandigarh vs. Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (173) ELT 225 ]. It is only subsequently the law was declared to the contrary by the Honble Supreme Court in number of judgments. As such, we are of the view that use of brand name santro in respect of rubber tubes by the present appellant cannot be with any malafide intention so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. Accordingly, we agree with the view adopted by both the authorities below and reject the Revenues appeal.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court)
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member(Technical)
ss
??
??
??
??
2
E/3240/05