TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Exemption Claim for Branded Goods, Rejects Revenue's Appeal</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA Versus EMSON GEARS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA Versus EMSON GEARS LTD. - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 1001 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Entitlement to small-scale exemption for automobile parts.2. Eligibility for exclusion while computing the value of total clearance.3. Justification for invoking the extended period.4. Claim for exemption under Chapter X Procedure for branded goods.Entitlement to Small-Scale Exemption for Automobile Parts:The appeal by the Revenue challenges the respondent's entitlement to small-scale exemption for automobile parts. The contention is that the goods cleared were not actually branded, making the value of such goods ineligible for exclusion in the total clearance calculation. The respondent's defense highlights that clearances were made under an approved Classification list, specifically mentioning branded goods. Letters from buyers also confirm the requirement for logos on parts. The Tribunal notes that since the goods were cleared as per the approved list, there is no basis for invoking the extended period. No suppression of facts to evade duty was found, leading to the rejection of the appeals.Eligibility for Exclusion While Computing the Value of Total Clearance:The defense presented by the respondent emphasizes that the goods were cleared under an approved Classification list, indicating branded goods. The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and hearing the arguments, finds no justification for invoking the extended period. The absence of intent to evade duty or suppression of facts leads to the rejection of the appeals. The respondent's claim for small-scale exemption is supported by the fact that the goods were cleared as original equipment, following Chapter X Procedure. As the goods were cleared after duty payment without claiming exemption under Chapter X Procedure, the duty demand confirmed in the impugned order is set aside, allowing the cross-objection.Justification for Invoking the Extended Period:The Tribunal's analysis reveals that since the goods were cleared in accordance with an approved Classification list, there is no valid reason to invoke the extended period. The absence of any intent to evade duty or suppression of facts further strengthens the decision to reject the appeals. The respondent's compliance with the approved list and the lack of grounds for extending the period contribute to the dismissal of the appeals.Claim for Exemption Under Chapter X Procedure for Branded Goods:The respondent's claim for exemption under Chapter X Procedure for branded goods is supported by the argument that small-scale exemption applies only if goods are cleared as original equipment following the specified procedure. In this case, the goods were cleared after duty payment without claiming exemption under Chapter X Procedure. Consequently, the exception provided in the Notification under Para 4 is not applicable. The duty demand confirmed in the impugned order is set aside, and the cross-objection is allowed based on the lack of exemption claim under Chapter X Procedure for the branded goods in question.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
