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>Tribunal: SSI exemption granted for Printed Polyethylene Rolls. No brand name found. Revenue's appeal dismissed.</h1> The Tribunal held that the Respondents were eligible for the SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE for Printed Polyethylene Rolls/Sheets, as the ... SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - manufacture and clearance of Printed Polyethylene Rolls/Sheets bearing brand names of various producers of milk - it is alleged that the packing material bears the brand name or trade name of another person - N/N. 8/2003-CE, dt.01.03.2003 - suppression of facts - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue has been considered recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RDB Textile Mills Vs CCE Kolkata-IV - 2018 (359) ELT 433 (SC). In the said case, the Assessee are manufacturer of jute bags, who supplied the said jute bags to various state agencies for packing of food grains, affixing the name, logo of the buyers viz. SCI and respective State Undertakings. The question was whether affixing the name of the buyers, who ultimately used the jute bags as packing material for packing the food grains be considered as affixing brand names of others, accordingly, fall out of the scope of exemption Notification. It was held in the case that the markings on the jute bags are not for the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the jute bag and some person using such name or mark. The markings are by compulsion of law only in order that Governmental authorities involved in the PDS may identify and segregate the aforesaid jute bags. This being the case, it is obvious that there is no “brand name” involved in the facts of the present cases. Revenue’s appeal being de-void of merit, is accordingly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE for Printed Polyethylene Rolls/Sheets bearing brand names of customers.2. Invocation of the extended period of limitation due to alleged suppression of facts.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for SSI Exemption:The primary issue for consideration was whether the Respondents were eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE, dated 01.03.2003, when manufacturing and clearing Printed Polyethylene Rolls/Sheets bearing brand names of various milk producers. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the demand on merit, following the ratio laid down in the Kohinoor Elastic Pvt. Ltd. case. However, the Tribunal referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment in RDB Textile Mills Vs CCE Kolkata-IV, which clarified the definition of 'brand name' and its implications. The Supreme Court observed that markings required by law for identification and control by governmental agencies do not constitute a 'brand name' intended to indicate a trade connection. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondents were eligible for the exemption as the markings on the polyethylene rolls/sheets were not for the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the product and the manufacturer but were compulsory for identification.2. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:The Revenue contended that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked due to suppression of facts by the Respondents. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand for the extended period, observing that there was no suppression of facts. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the Respondents had not suppressed any facts and that the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of the exemption notification was availed in compliance with the law and that the Respondents had disclosed all relevant information in their monthly returns.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the Respondents were eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE on merit and that there was no suppression of facts warranting the invocation of the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the cross objection was disposed of.Order:The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
