2005 (9) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....' and the connected logo [belonging to an Australian company] were printed. One of the Directors of the assessee, Shri Chandraksekaran admitted that they were using the brand name 'Cookie Man' belonging to the Australian company, but added that they had obtained permission for using it in India. He also claimed that the 'cookies' were different from biscuits and were classifiable under SH 1905.90 of the CETA Schedule. The officers could gather evidence indicating that 'cookies' were nothing but biscuits. From the results of the investigations, it appeared to the department that the 'cookies' manufactured by the assessee were classifiable as biscuits under SH 1905.11 and that SSI exemption was not available to the 'cookies' which were cleare....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the cookies sold unbranded to customers for immediate consumption were not eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption. Ld. SDR has reiterated this case of the Revenue. Ld. Counsel countered the above argument on the strength of the Supreme Court's judgment in CCE v. Superex Industries - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) and the Tribunal's decisions in the cases of Connaught Plaza Restaurant Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 187 and Sai Aditya Hotels & Super Markets (P) Ltd - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 188 (Tri. - Bang.). We find that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Connaught Plaza Restaurant (supra) was relied on by the Commissioner to hold that, merely because the unbranded cookies were sold from the retail outlet which exhibited the bran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bills. It was held by the Tribunal that, on account of this fact alone, the items sold under the bills could not be held to be branded goods and accordingly SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was held to be admissible to the said items. In the case of Superex Industries (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that exemption under SSI notification was not deniable for the mere reason that the specified goods, though not branded, were cleared under invoices in which the brand name of another person was printed. Thus, we find, the Revenue's case is hit by the case law cited by ld. Counsel. The Commissioner has rightly allowed SSI benefit to the assessee in respect of the unbranded cookies sold at their outlets for immediate consu....