Scope of remand and small-scale exemption: tribunal declined to reopen manufacturer status and upheld denial of further relief.

In proceedings before CESTAT Chennai, the Tribunal noted that a manufacturer-versus-trader contention could not be reopened at a later stage because the earlier remand had confined the enquiry to the availability of small-scale exemption. It therefore declined to travel beyond the scope of the prior orders and rejected the claim that the appellant was not the manufacturer. On the exemption issue, the Tribunal found that the trademark 'Mahaan' was endorsed in the appellant's name only from 01.04.1998, that exemption had already been granted for the eligible post-dated period, and that no fresh factual or legal basis existed to disturb the remaining demand. The appeal failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could reopen the contention that it was not the manufacturer and was only a trader getting the goods made through job workers; (ii) whether any further relief was available on the claim of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 16/1997-CE.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant could reopen the contention that it was not the manufacturer and was only a trader getting the goods made through job workers.

Analysis: The appeal had already travelled earlier to the Tribunal, which had upheld the Revenue's stand on classification and, in the remand proceedings, had limited the enquiry to the applicability of small-scale exemption. There had been no earlier finding on the manufacturer-versus-trader contention, and the Tribunal declined to go beyond the scope of the earlier orders at this stage.

Conclusion: The contention that the appellant was not the manufacturer was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether any further relief was available on the claim of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 16/1997-CE.

Analysis: The trademark 'Mahaan' stood endorsed in the appellant's name only with effect from 01.04.1998. The lower authorities had already extended the exemption for the period after that date and had confirmed the demand only for the earlier period. No further factual or legal basis was shown for disturbing that finding.

Conclusion: No further interference was called for in respect of the small-scale exemption.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower authorities was upheld and the appeal failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot, in a later stage of the same proceedings, reopen a contention that lies outside the scope of the earlier appellate remand, and exemption already granted for the eligible period cannot be expanded without a fresh legal basis.

---