SSI exemption dispute: factual findings and late trademark plea raised no substantial question of law, so the appeal failed.

The Delhi HC held that no substantial question of law arose from the Revenue's challenge to denial of Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. The dispute turned on factual findings of the appellate authority and Tribunal, including the effect of sticker affixation and entitlement to SSI exemption. The Court also found it improper to allow the Revenue to raise, nearly eight years after the show cause notice, a plea that the goods were procured from a person using a registered trademark when that ground had not been raised before the Tribunal. The appeal therefore failed on merits and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal disclosed any substantial question of law in relation to denial of Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. dated 1st March 2003.

Analysis: The Court noted that the dispute rested on factual findings recorded by the appellate authority and the Tribunal, including the absence of a ground before the Tribunal that the goods were procured from a person using a registered trademark. The Court held that permitting the Revenue to raise such a plea nearly eight years after the show cause notice was neither justified nor proper. It further held that the Tribunal's view on the effect of sticker affixation and entitlement to SSI exemption was factual in nature and did not give rise to a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the appeal was not maintainable on merits and failed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the grant of SSI exemption was rejected, and the appeal stood dismissed.

---