TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. despite clearing machined castings with code numbers, drawing numbers and part names; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q could be sustained once the exemption was held available.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. despite clearing machined castings with code numbers, drawing numbers and part names.
Analysis: The goods were cleared as parts showing the original equipment manufacturer's code number, design number or drawing number. The Board's instructions and the trade notification relied upon recognized that such particulars, by themselves, did not disqualify a manufacturer from the SSI exemption. The record did not establish that the appellant's markings represented another person's brand name, and there was no sufficient basis to deny the benefit merely because the castings were purchased from foundries and machined into specific parts before clearance.
Conclusion: The exemption was available to the appellant and the denial of the benefit was not justified.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q could be sustained once the exemption was held available.
Analysis: The penalty was imposed only because the duty demand was confirmed. Once the exemption was found admissible, the foundation for the demand disappeared and no separate basis remained to uphold the penalty.
Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty failed, and the appellant obtained the relief claimed in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Clearance of parts bearing only OEM code, design or drawing particulars does not by itself amount to use of a disqualifying brand name for SSI exemption, and a penalty dependent on the set-aside duty demand cannot survive.
TaxTMI 
