TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Simultaneous SSI Exemption & CENVAT Credit Not Allowed: Tribunal Upholds Decision</h1> The case involved the issue of simultaneous availment of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE and CENVAT Credit. The tribunal ruled that ... SSI Exemption - benefit of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - availing of simultaneous of benefit under N/N. 8/2003 CE and CENVAT Credit in respect of the goods cleared on payment of duty - whether simultaneous availment of CENVAT Credit in respect of the inputs used in manufacture of dutiable final products viz Branded Goods and SSI exemption under N/N. 8/2003=CE dated 01.03.2003 as amended is permissible or not? - Difference of opinion. Held that:- There is a difference of opinion - the difference of opinion is on the point: Whether the appeal has to be rejected as held by Learned Member (Technical) or the same has to be allowed as held by Learned Member (Judicial)? Issues Involved:1. Simultaneous availment of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE and CENVAT Credit.2. Interpretation of exemption notifications and relevant legal precedents.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Simultaneous Availment of SSI Exemption and CENVAT CreditThe appellants challenged the Order in Appeal which confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,88,595, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000, and demanded interest under section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The core issue was whether the appellants could simultaneously avail the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE and CENVAT Credit for inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty.The appellants argued that the tribunal in the case of Cure Quick Remedies P Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula had held that such simultaneous availment is permissible. Conversely, the respondent cited decisions from Warna Packaging Pvt Ltd, Synthetic Industries, and U P Engineering Corporation, which held that simultaneous availment of CENVAT Credit and exemption under the notification is not permissible.Issue 2: Interpretation of Exemption Notifications and Relevant Legal PrecedentsThe tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of Notification No. 8/2003-CE and previous judgments. The notification's conditions included the option to not avail the exemption and pay the normal rate of duty, and the prohibition of availing credit of duty on inputs for specified goods cleared for home consumption up to a certain value.The tribunal noted that in Cure Quick Remedies, it was held that the notification allows for simultaneous availment of SSI exemption and CENVAT Credit for non-branded goods. However, the Ahmedabad bench in Synthetic Industries held that such simultaneous availment is not permissible, emphasizing strict adherence to the conditions of the notification.The tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar and Company, which emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications and that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the revenue.Separate Judgments:Judgment by Member (Technical):The Member (Technical) concluded that the decision in Synthetic Industries, which aligns with the Supreme Court's stance on strict interpretation, should prevail. Thus, the simultaneous availment of SSI exemption and CENVAT Credit is not permissible. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).Judgment by Member (Judicial):The Member (Judicial) disagreed, emphasizing that the notification allows for the exemption of own manufactured goods up to a certain value while requiring duty payment on branded goods, thus permitting CENVAT Credit for inputs used in branded goods. The interpretation that simultaneous availment is not allowed was deemed incorrect, and the appeal should be allowed.Conclusion:There was a difference of opinion between the two members. The Member (Technical) held that the appeal should be rejected, while the Member (Judicial) held that the appeal should be allowed. The matter was pronounced in court on 18.12.2018.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
