TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aders/manufacturer, no duty has been paid by them as they had availed exemption under Notification No.8/2003 dated 01/03/203, they being a SSI Unit. 2.1 The order-in-original recognizes that no demand has been raised in respect of branded goods cleared to M/s.Reliance Infocomm Ltd. The order-in-original in respect of goods cleared after manufacture under job work claiming Notification No.214/86, 83/94 and Rule 4 (5) (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. It was pointed out that the appellant had not filed the declaration and undertaking to the proper officer having jurisdiction over the factory of job-worker. Order-in-original rejects the contention of the respondent that it was only a procedural requirement and denied the benefit of exemption to the respondent. In respect goods received from various traders without any challan prescribed under Rule 4 (5) (a) of CCR, 2002, the respondents had claimed the benefit of Notification No.8/2003. The respondent had claimed that exclusion of value of goods cleared to M/s.Reliance Infocom Ltd. as branded goods. The order-in-original holds that no evidence of the same being branded goods has been produced. The order therefore, included the value....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts - 2007 (215) ELT 448 (Tri-Ahmd). Ld. AR further argued that the decision of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) relied in the impugned order is not applicable as the declaration in this case is not a mere procedural requirement. He argued that declaration in the instant case shifts liability from the job worker to the principal manufacturer. In the absence of such declaration no liability can be fixed on the principal manufacturer supplying raw materials. Thus, the declaration under this notification cannot be regarded a mere formalities of procedural requirement. He further argued that the respondents had not declared the job work activities in their monthly return nor had their declared the availment any of the aforesaid exemption notification in their monthly returns. In these circumstances, invocation of extended period or imposition of penalty is justified. 4. None appeared for the respondent. On last two occasions there was no adjournment request also. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the circulars issued by the CBEC to grant benefit. It is seen that the said circulars have been issued with re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....125 (Tribunal)] of the Tribunal (which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 2789 of 2007) : "7. The provisions in the relevant Notifications to compute aggregate value of clearances mandate that the clearances of goods bearing brand name or trade name of another persons which are ineligible for the grant of exemption shall not be taken into account in determining the aggregate value of clearances. Therefore, value of clearances of goods bearing brand name of third parties without availing the benefit of Notification No.8/2003 is not reckoned for computing clearance value of rupees one hundred lakhs in any year for exemption benefit. From these clauses contained in the relevant Notifications, it is clear that goods bearing brand name of third parties were not eligible for exemption contained in Notification No.8/2003. Identical provision existed in Notification No.9/2003 where the option of availment of Modvat benefit and payment of a concessional rate of duty was prescribed. Goods bearing brand name of third parties are therefore excluded from the exemption in Notification No.9/2003 as well. The assessee has not availed the benefit contained in either of the Notifications 8/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; 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. 4. The exemption contained in the Notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person, except in the following cases...." The exclusions mentioned are components manufactured for OE manufacturers, goods manufactured in rural area, goods bearing brand names of KVIC etc. The conditions contained in para 2(iii) of the relevant Notifications seminal to the dispute was not present in the Notification No.175/86. The relevant notifications are different from Notification No.175/86 in....