Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Cce vs Madras Carbons (P) Ltd. on 17 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(83)ECR718(TRI.-CHENNAI)
ORDER V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 8/91 (M) dated 16.1.1991 wherein the Learned Collector (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original No. 35/90 dated 24.9.1990. in which a demand of Rs. 31,499.10 had been confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 1000/-imposed.
2. Briefly, the issue concerns the inclusion or otherwise of value of goods which were cleared by SSI manufacturer after affixing the brand name of M/s. LUCAS TVS and on payment of full rate of duty in the value of clearances to be computed under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986.
3. Learned Collector (Appeals) has held that since the goods are affixed with brand name of LUCAS TVS and cleared on full payment of duty leviable, their value shall be excluded for computing the slab exemption limits and aggregate value of clearances.
4. Revenue is in appeal against this.
5. Heard Learned JDR Shri S. Kannan, who reiterates the grounds of appeal.
6. Revenue appeals on the ground that as per the Explanation-II to Notification No. 175/86 what can be excluded from the computation of aggregate value etc. is clearance of those excisable goods which are either charged to NIL rate of duty or which are only exempted. Since the branded goods paid full duty therefore they cannot be excluded as this provision is not specifically incorporated in the said explanation to the said notification. Similarly, the provisions of para-3 of the said notification are applicable to a specific reason and same cannot be generally applied.
7. Heard Shri Arvind P. Datar, Learned Advocate for respondents who submits that the issue is already covered one and the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Power and Control has held that in the case of an SSI unit manufacturing light fittings both under their own brand name "PAC" & "BAJAJ", the latter having been cleared on payment of duty, these latter clearances are not to be taken into consideration while computing the value of first clearances of Rs. 15 lakhs under Notification No. 175/86. Learned advocate submits that a similar view has been held in the case of Vinod Detergents as which has relied on the decision in the case of CCE v. Power and Control (supra).
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions as well as records of the case and find that since it is already a well established case-law that the value of clearances of somebody else's brand name and on payment of full duty is to be excluded both from the computation or value of slab clearances as well as aggregate value of computation, as is evident from the two case-laws noted above, we respectfully apply the ratio thereof to the facts of this case. While doing so, we find that the facts of this case are exactly identical to the facts considered in these two decisions in as much as that respondents are clearing the same product partly by affixing the brand name of LUCAS TVS and the rest in their own brand name. Therefore, ratio of these decisions are clearly applicable to the facts of this case. We find that though the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had not cited the ratio of these decisions because these are later decisions and were not available to him at the time the order-in-appeal was passed, however, he has applied the same principle in the said Order-in-Appeal.
9. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the said Order-in-Appeal impugned so as to compel us to interfere with the same. Accordingly the appeal of Revenue is rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court).