2025 (7) TMI 1640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ni branded goods when they were cleared from their factory. For the goods manufactured under their own brand, they were claiming SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003 CE dated 1.3.2003 as amended from time to time. During the investigation taken up by the Revenue, it was found that they were availing Cenvat Credit and paying Excise Duty for their 'Fresh Bake' goods, but in respect of 'Bake Shop', they were not paying Excise Duty claiming the turnover to be less than the limit specified for SSI units. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 09.02.2011 for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 by invoking the extended period provisions. After due process, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exempted which are excluded by virtue of Para 4 of the notification mentioned above shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the clearance value of Rs. 400 lakhs. 2.5 The said position is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC, Chennai v Nebulae Health Care Ltd. [2015 (325) ELT 431(SC)]. 2.6 On issue (b) above, at the outset they would like to clarify that they have not taken any CENVAT credit for own brand products i.e. for Fresh Bake, Bake Shop & Jolojog (kind of sweets and by itself not dutiable). This factual position was clarified by Shri Mohan Krishna Maitra, General Manager of the appellant company in his statement (reply to question 20) under summon on 11.11.2010. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....E law which were always open to the Department and the Department has framed the charges in the SCN on the basis of the scrutiny of the said records only and no new factual evidence has been brought forth by the Department to sustain charges framed in the SCN which culminated into the purported demand of Rs. 35,91,558/-. The SCN was issued on 09.02.2011 covering the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 (upto July, 2010). Thus, a major portion of the demand from 2006-07 to 2009-10 (upto December 2009) is barred by limitation of time since SCN has been issued after one year from the date of filing ER-1 returns. 3. At the time of Hearing, the Ld Counsel submitted the copies of Annexure A and Annexure B of the Show Cause Notice, which as per him wou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is exemption in terms of paragraph 4; After amendment with effect from 1.4.2007 [Notn No.8/2007 dt 1.3.2007] 2. In the said notification,- (i) in the Table, in column (2), for the words "one hundred lakh rupees", the words "one hundred and fifty lakh rupees" shall be substituted; 7. From the above extracts, we note that the SSI limit was Rs.1 crore from 1.3.2003 to 31.3.2007, which was increased to Rs.1.50 crores from 1.4.2007. We will refer this as 'inner limit' for ease of reference. Similarly, the outer limit was initially at Rs.3 crores, which was increased to Rs.4 crores subsequently. The assessee opting for SSI, has to start to pay Excise Duty the moment he exceeds the inner limit. However, within the sam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns to compute aggregate value of clearances mandate that the clearances of goods bearing brand name or trade name of another person 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 Rs. 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resh Bake' during the years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The turnover for these years, are less than the threshold limit of Rs.1 crores. Hence, on this score itself the demands for these years are not sustainable. 15. In respect of turnover of 2007-2008, the turnover being Rs.1.41 crores, the same is less than the increased SSI inner limit of Rs.1.50 crores. On this ground, the confirmed demand is not sustainable. 16. For the year 2008-09 the total turnover is Rs.1,51,04,201 as per the Table B, which is more than Rs.1.50 cr inner turnover limit. However, from Annexure A we find that cum-duty benefit has been given while quantifying the demand. If cum-duty benefit is considered the turnover would be Rs.1,48,95,042 [13758995 + 1136047]. Therefo....