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 rules in favor of appellants in benefits denial case</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the denial of benefits under Notification No. 175/96-C.E. u/s 175/86 due to affixing Maruti ... SSI Exemption - Demand - Limitation Issues involved: 1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 175/96-C.E. u/s 175/86 due to affixing Maruti Udyog Limited's trademark on printed label. 2. Invocation of larger period for demands arising from 1-10-1987 to 30-5-1990 due to alleged suppression. Issue 1 - Denial of benefit of Notification: The appeal concerned the denial of benefits under Notification No. 175/96-C.E. u/s 175/86 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad. The appellants were manufacturing Wire harness classifiable under Heading 8544.00 of the Tariff. The dispute arose from affixing the name Maruthi on the label attached to the Wire harness supplied to Maruthi, potentially disentitling the appellants from the SSI exemption. The contention was that the name Maruthi was for identification purposes only and not affixed on the goods themselves. However, this contention was rejected. The appellants also argued against the time-bar invoking the larger period, citing previous show cause notices and inspections as reasons why suppression could not be alleged after a considerable lapse of time.Issue 2 - Invocation of larger period: The appellants argued that the larger period should not be invoked, as the premises were regularly inspected and the Department was aware of the facts from the earlier show cause notice. They relied on various judgments to support their position, emphasizing that suppression cannot be alleged after a significant period has passed. The Tribunal noted that the specified goods were not embossed with any trademark of Maruthi Udyog Limited, as required by the Notification. Citing precedents such as Trimurti Weldmesh (Pvt.) Limited and Tracko International, where similar benefits were granted, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on both merit and limitation grounds. The judgment highlighted the necessity of proving intention to evade duty, which was not established in this case, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs as per law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
