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 rules against Revenue in SSI benefit case, highlights branding obligation</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAGPUR Versus SAKOLI SPRINGS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAGPUR Versus SAKOLI SPRINGS LTD. - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 333 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Appeal against order of CCE (Appeals) regarding clearance of unbranded leaf Springs as branded goods for SSI benefit.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the clearance of unbranded leaf Springs as branded goods by the assessee during the financial year 1995-96 to avail Small Scale Industries (SSI) benefit. The Revenue contended that the department lacked corroborative documentary or circumstantial evidence to support their allegations. The grounds of appeal included the assertion that the assessee was clearing unbranded leaf Springs disguised as branded goods to stay within the Rs. 3 crore turnover limit for SSI benefit, the absence of brand names on supplied invoices, and the lack of brand identification marks on dispatch documents or purchase orders.Upon hearing the case and noting the absence of the Respondents, the Tribunal considered the arguments put forth by the Departmental Representative (DR). The DR failed to present any specific material to challenge the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized that an SSI unit can choose to pay duty at full rates and is obligated to pay duty on goods labeled with the brand name of the relevant vehicle. Despite the Board's classification allowing parts from original equipment suppliers, the Tribunal determined that leaf Springs marked with brand names such as TISCO or ACT POWER LEAF should not be considered unbranded goods eligible for SSI benefit. Citing the decision of the Apex Court on brand and trade names, the Tribunal found no justification to disregard the Commissioner (Appeals) findings and rejected the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the leaf Springs marked with specific brand names were not eligible for SSI benefit as unbranded goods.
TaxTMI 