TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factured P&P medicaments on behalf of M/s. Vellanova Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (VPL for short). The medicines manufactured were having the brand name of M/s. VPL. It was further claimed that the said M/s. VPL is a small scale unit and since the appellant were manufacturing the goods of another small scale unit carrying the brand name of that SSI, they are eligible for the benefit of Notification 175/86 even in respect of goods manufactured on behalf of M/s. VPL. 2. On the basis of information, the matter was investigated and it was found that M/s. VPL is a subsidiary company of a big industrial group M/s. Business Combines Ltd. having a turnover of more than `2 crores which far exceeded the SSI limits. Investigation also revealed that M/s. VPL ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacture goods on behalf of M/s. VPL. It was further submitted that at the relevant time M/s. VPL had provisional SSI registration certificate and as clarified by the Board vide circular no. B-21/15/86-TRU dated 03.04.1987 the provisional registration from the state government authorities could be accepted for purpose of duty concession. It was submitted the said provisional certificate was converted into permanent certificate and as clarified by the Board vide Circular no. 46/90-CX dated 11.07.1990, M/s. VPL would be eligible for getting the benefit of SSI Notification. Ld. counsel further submitted that once the clarification list is approved it is not open for the department to raise the demand as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... satisfied. 4.1. Ld. AR further submitted that the issue of brand name is elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in number of cases. In support of the same, ld. AR cited the following case: * CCE vs. Khanna Inds. 2007 (207) ELT 17 (SC) * Namtech Systems Ltd. 2000 (115) ELT 238 * Harts Cocoa Products (P) Ltd. 1996 (88) ELT 714 * Kores India Ltd. 2003 (158) ELT 658 * Beco Chemicals (P) Ltd. 2003 (156) ELT 668 * Yash Krishna Food Services Ltd. 2015 (318) ELT 144 * Kothari Poly Extrusion 2014 (314) ELT 307 * CCE vs. Tubes & Structurals 2015 (165) ELT 481 * CCE vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders 2004 (165) ELT 481 * CCE vs. Ace Auto Comp. Ltd. 2011 (263) ELT 3 (SC) * Parle Bisleri P. Ltd. 2011 (263) ELT 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty substantially. He further submitted that approval of classification list has to be considered as non est in the eyes of law for the simple reason that the manufacturing unit was not in existence or capable of producing any goods at the relevant time. Moreover, such a crucial fact was intentionally and wilfully suppressed from the Revenue in the classification list. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. The relevant provisions in Notification 175/86 is as under : "7. The exemption contained in the Notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is not in dispute that during the period in question M/s. VPL was not having manufacturing facility and has not commenced the commercial production. Hence goods manufactured by the appellant in the brand name of M/s. VPL would not be eligible for the benefit of Notification 175/86. Ld. counsel has emphasised that the unit was provisionally registered and in view of Boards clarification dated 03.04.1987 and further clarification dated 11.07.1990, M/s. VPL will be eligible to the benefit of SSI. We have gone through the clarification. Relevant portion of clarification dated 03.04.1987 and 11.07.1990. Circular: B-21/15/ 86-TRU, dated 3-4-1987 "Doubts have been expressed by some Collectors on the question whether the small scale units w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is clarification is that many a time a unit might have a provisional SSI certificate and thereafter would have started the commercial production while the state government authorities grant permanent SSI certificate after ensuring that such unit have started the commercial production and have the necessary capabilities and facilities. During the intervening period, if a view is taken that the goods produced by such a unit will not be eligible for SSI benefit the same would have caused undue hardship to such SSI unit. In the present case, the goods have not been produced by M/s. VPL but by the appellant. In our considered view, the said clarifications are not relevant. In the present circumstances, what is to be seen is M/s. VPL is a functio....