Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.British Health Products India Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 3 February, 2016
IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:3.2.2016
Excise Appeal No.E/3782/2006-EX (DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.230(GRM)CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 22.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur).
M/s.British Health Products India Ltd. .Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri Rahul Tangri, CA for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Govind Dixit, DR for the respondent.
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, 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? 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 the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Coram: Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order Nos.50172/2016 dated:03.02.2016 Per S.K. Mohanty:
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Maize Starch, which is exempted from payment of central excise duty in terms of notification no.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002. The appellant also manufactures Low Sodium Salt called LoNa and avails SSI exemption under notification no.8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. They manufacture Ayurvedic medicines and Ostwel Capsules on job work basis with brand name of others and pay excise duty in respect of those products. The SSI Exemption with regard to the product LoNa was denied to the appellant on the ground that the cenvat credit has been taken on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods with brand name of others.
3. According to the respondent/Department, the appellant is not entitled for both the benefits i.e. SSI exemption and cenvat credit.
4. Shri Rahul Tangri, ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellant submits that the dispute arising out of the present case is no more res integra in view of the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Nebulae Health Care Ltd. 2015 (325) ELT 431 (SC).
5. On the other hand, Shri Govind Dixit, ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly denied the benefit of SSI exemption by relying on the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Food Products - 2004 (174) ELT 310 (SC).
6. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the appellant solely on the ground that simultaneous availment of cenvat credit and SSI exemption for the same products will not be available. To arrive at the conclusion. ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Food Products (supra). Considering the judgement of the Ramesh Food Products (supra), the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nibulae Heath Care Ltd. (supra) have held that manufacture of dutiable goods bearing a brand name is outside the scope and purview of the SSI exemption notification since the branded goods manufactured on job work basis is not covered by the said notification. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement is extracted below :-
..It also follows that once excise duty is paid by the manufacturer on such branded goods manufactured, the brand name whereof belongs to another person, on job work basis, the SSI Unit would be entitled to Cenvat/Modvat credit on the inputs which were used for manufacture of such goods as on those inputs also excise duty was paid. To put it otherwise, these branded goods manufactured by the SSI Units meant for third parties are regulated by the normal provisions of excise law and will have no bearing or relevance insofar as availing the benefit of those exemption notifications in respect of its own products manufactured by the SSI units is concerned.
7. In view of the above said position of law, we do not find any merit in the impugned order and thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
[Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 3.2.2016] ( S.K. Mohanty ) Member (Judicial) ( B. Ravichandran ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1