Cce, Jaipur-I vs M/S.Smilex Pharmaceuticals

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI

Date of Hearing/Decision:16.09.2015

Excise Appeal No.E/2051/2006-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.61(MPM)CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 16.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jaipur).

CCE, Jaipur-I Appellants

Vs.

M/s.Smilex Pharmaceuticals Respondent

Appearance:

Rep. by Shri R.K. Grover, Advocate for the appellant.

Rep. by none for the respondent.

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Coram: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No.52944/2015 dated:16.09.2015

Per B.Ravichandran:

Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 21.03.2006 of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent are engaged in the manufacture of medicaments liable to central excise duty.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :-

The respondents are manufacturing and clearing goods in their own brand name and in the brand name of others. For the goods with their own brand name, they are claiming SSI exemption and for the goods with another personss brand name, they were paying full rate of duty. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent to consider the aggregate value of the clearances made so as to include the good with own brand name and goods cleared with others brand name. As the aggregate value exceeds the exemption limit, duty was sought to be demanded. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty. On appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the value of the goods affixed with the brand name of another person and cleared on payment of full rate of duty is not to be included in the aggregate value of the clearances to arrive at the SSI limit. He set aside the original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

3. In the grounds of appeal, it was mentioned that the ld. Commissioners (Appeals) order is in line with his earlier decision in respect of the same assessee. The said decisions were appealed by the Department. The appeal by the Revenue stated that exclusion of value of the goods cleared with others brand name is available only for arriving at the first clearance of Rs.1 Crore. After completion of the exemption when both type of the clearances are subjected to the full rate of duty, exclusion of the goods with other brand name from the aggregate value is not justified.

4. Ld. AR reiterated the grounds of appeal by the Revenue.

5. None appeared for the respondent.

6. We have examined the appeal papers. We find that this Tribunal in respect of the same respondent on the same issue has already rejected the Revenues appeal against the lower authorities findings in favour of the respondent reported in 2012(280) ELT 549 (Tribunal-Delhi). We find that the distinction sought to be made by the Revenue in the appeal to the effect that aggregate value for clearance without payment of duty upto Rs.1 crores has to be differently considered than the method of arriving at the aggregate value of Rs.300 lakhs for the previous year is not supported by any provisions in the notification. The intention as alleged in the appeal is not to be found in the wordings of the notification. The same subject matter has been examined and decided by this Tribunal as mentioned above. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.

[operative portion already pronounced in the open court]

( Ashok Jindal )

Member (Judicial)

( B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

Ckp.

1