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 grants SSI exemption and duty credit, sets aside penalties in favor of Telebrands</h1> <h3>M/s Telebrands (India) Pvt. Ltd, Shri Hitesh Israni Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III</h3> M/s Telebrands (India) Pvt. Ltd, Shri Hitesh Israni Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 1144 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Classification of goods under Central Excise Act, liability for duty based on MRP, applicability of SSI exemption, time-barred demands, imposition of penalties.Classification of Goods and Liability for Duty:The case involved M/s Telebrands engaged in telemarketing of products through TV advertising, purchasing goods from importers, and packing them with additional safety measures and MRP labels. The Revenue alleged the goods fell under specific chapters and were liable for duty under the Central Excise Act. The Appellants argued that the packing process did not amount to manufacture and should be exempt under SSI provisions. They also claimed entitlement to duty credit on inputs. The Tribunal found the activity constituted manufacture under the Act, but the Appellants, as owners of the brand name, were entitled to SSI exemption and duty credit, citing relevant case laws.SSI Exemption and Time-Barred Demands:The Appellants challenged the demands as time-barred, contending they lacked intent to evade duty and were unaware of the relevant tariff schedule. The Tribunal agreed, noting the transparent business practices, public advertising, and absence of suppression of facts. Consequently, the demands were deemed time-barred, and the confiscation of goods and penalties were set aside.Imposition of Penalties:Regarding penalties, the Tribunal found no evidence of contumacious conduct or intent to evade duty, leading to the conclusion that penalties were unjustified. The Appellant, Shri Hitesh Israni, was not liable for penalties under Rule 26. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and providing consequential reliefs, if any, in favor of the Appellants. The judgment was pronounced on 03/05/2017 by the Tribunal, comprising Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial), and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical).
TaxTMI 