TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rand as well as in the name of others. The goods cleared in their own brand name, the appellant is availing SSI Exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and with the branded goods for others, the appellant is availing cenvat credit on inputs and clearing the same on payment of duty. The Revenue is of the view that the appellant is manufacturing goods with the brand name of others, therefore, they are not entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. In these set of facts, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants and the matter was adjudicated which converted into demand on the goods cleared by the appellants in their own brand, denying the benefit of exemption Notification No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, in the light of the other paragraphs, brings into focus the overall scheme. It, inter alia, provides that the clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of third parties which are ineligible for grant of this exemption, for the purposes of determining aggregate value of clearances for home consumption, are not to be included. These Notifications also make it clear that the exemption contained therein is not to apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of any person, except under certain circumstances specifically stipulated therein. The Notifications also clarify that for the purpose of these Notifications, where the goods manufactured by a manufacturer bear brand name or trade name ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereof belongs to another person, on job work basis, the SSI Unit would be entitled to Cenvat/Modvat credit on the inputs which were used for manufacture of such goods as on those inputs also excise duty was paid. To put it otherwise, these branded goods manufactured by the SSI Units meant for third parties are regulated by the normal provisions of excise law and will have no bearing or relevance insofar as availing the benefit of those exemption notifications in respect of its own products manufactured by the SSI Units is concerned. 18. We, thus, find that the Tribunal in the impugned decisions in both these appeals has decided the issue correctly. Admittedly, in respect of home production, the assessee had not availed the benefit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her of the Notifications 8/99 and 9/99, 8/2000 and 9/2000 etc. in respect of goods bearing brand name of third parties. 8. We find that the impugned order also seeks support of the ratio of Ramesh Food Products case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court considered the options available to the SSI units clearing specified goods and decided that both the options provided substantive concessions viz; Modvat and exemption under Notfn. 175/86 to the manufacturer and the manufacturer had to decide on one option. Once an option was made, there was no liberty to the assessee to avail benefits of both the options simultaneously. Therefore an SSI unit availing full exemption as per the Notfn. No. 17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tfns. Clearances of goods bearing brand name of third parties is thus not governed by the Notfns. issued for the benefit of SSI units. xx xx xx 9.1 All the twin Notifications contain the following identical conditions excluding the goods bearing brand name of third parties from the purview of both the Notifications : 3. For the purpose of determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumptions, the following clearances shall not be taken into account, namely : (a) xx xx xx (b) clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of another person, which are ineligible for the grant of this exemption in terms of paragraph 4 below. ....