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>Branded goods exclusions in SSI exemption upheld</h1> <h3>M/s. Shree Om Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-II And (Vice-Versa)</h3> M/s. Shree Om Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-II And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE.2. Inclusion of clearances of exempted goods in the aggregate value of clearances.3. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for SSI Exemption:The primary issue revolves around whether the assessee is entitled to the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, given that their goods bear the brand name of another person. The assessee argues that their goods, such as calendars, posters, and diaries, are branded with the names of their buyers, and thus, should be excluded from the aggregate value of clearances as per para 3A(b) and para 4 of the notification. The Tribunal referenced the case of Savotham Care Limited, which clarified that clearances bearing the brand name of another person, which are ineligible for exemption under para 4, should not be included in the aggregate value of clearances. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee’s interpretation, noting that the notification's wording should be followed precisely without inferring additional distinctions not explicitly stated.2. Inclusion of Clearances of Exempted Goods:The Revenue's contention was that the total value of clearances should include the clearances of exempted goods, thereby exceeding the threshold limits for SSI exemption. The Tribunal, however, referenced previous decisions, including Roots Multiclean Ltd., which established that the value of clearances bearing the brand name of another person should be excluded when calculating the aggregate value for SSI exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification does not distinguish between exempted goods and dutiable goods for this purpose, and thus, the clearances bearing another's brand name should not be included in the aggregate value.3. Entitlement to Cenvat Credit:The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit to the assessee, which the Revenue contested, arguing that the assessee should not be entitled to take credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The Tribunal, however, did not find merit in the Revenue's argument and upheld the decision to allow Cenvat credit, aligning with the precedent that clearances bearing another’s brand name, which are ineligible for exemption, should not be included in the aggregate value of clearances.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to SSI exemption as the clearances bearing the brand name of another person should be excluded from the aggregate value of clearances. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precise wording of the notification and supported by previous judgments, ensuring that the clearances of branded goods are not included in the aggregate value for determining SSI exemption eligibility.
TaxTMI 