2013 (10) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In addition a penalty of Rs.50 ,000 /- stands imposed upon M/s. Keesara Plastics Pvt.Ltd . 2. As per facts on records, M/s. Supreme Lamps are engaged in the manufacture of electrical bulbs under the brand name of M/s. Kesara Plastics Pvt. Ltd. The said electrical bulbs were being supplied to brand name owner who was further using the same in the manufacture of torch. In terms of paragraph 5 of SSI exemption No.16/97-CE and 8/98-CE, the goods manufactured under the brand name of other persons were not entitled to the SSI exemption notification. However, the said branded goods used as original equipment in the manufacture of said final product, the same earns exemption subject to following the procedure laid down in Chapter X of Central Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bench for determination of other subsisting issue if any. 6. Accordingly the appeal stands heard by us. 7. Ld.Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the demand is barred by limitation having issued beyond normal period of limitation of six months during the intervening period. He submits that during the period 1998-99 to which the demand pertaining, there were enormous decisions of the Tribunal and various High Courts as also Supreme Court laying down that non following chapter X procedure cannot result in denial of substantive benefit, if the same are otherwise available. He submits that inasmuch as para 5 of the notification granted the exemption benefit to the branded goods used by the brand name owner in the manufacture....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. J.K.Synthetics-2000 (120) ELT 54 (SC) as also in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner-1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC). 10. The above view held field for number of years when the correctness of the same was doubted in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal etc.-2005 (188) ELT 353 (SC) and the matter was referred to 5 Member Bench of Supreme Court. Accordingly, it was decided in that case, that observance of chapter X procedure is mandatory as reported in 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC) . 11. As is clear from the above, the law during the relevant period was in favour of the Revenue and now question to be decided is as to whether in such sce....