Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: paragon polymer in M/S Chhaparia Thermoplast (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Daman on 8 June, 2016Matching Fragments
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.