Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Taj Madras Flight Kitchen Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.18/04 (M IV), dated 09.03.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV APPELLANT

Versus

M/s. TAJ MADRAS FLIGHT KITCHEN PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT

Appearance:

For the Appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal AC (AR)

For the Respondent Shri R. Parthasarathy Adv.

CORAM:

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honbe Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member

Date of hearing/decision 27-01-2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 40069 / 2015

Per D.N. Panda:

Revenue says that SSI exemption is not admissible to the respondent for the reasons stated in the show-cause notice.

2. Learned counsel says that the appellant did not manufacture any branded goods for which SSI benefit is permissible to it. But Revenue submits that because it is a group company of Taj Group of Hotels, such exemption is deniable.

3. When denial of exemption was made, the show-cause notice was perused. That shows that the appellant had supplied the goods without any brand name or logo embossed thereon. Even goods purchased for supply did not carry any brand name or logo. Revenue came out subsequent to the issue of the show-cause notice dated 30.06.2003 to deny the exemption on the ground that the appellant was a part of the group company through an addendum. But nothing was spelt out in the show-cause notice which was originally issued on 30.06.2003 as to the manner why the exemption benefit is not permissible to the respondent. It is only a bald show-cause notice without bringing out the allegation in clear terms for defence of the Respondent. Without specific and clear allegations and materials relied upon to make allegation, it cannot be said that the show-cause notice was proper in providing foundation to adjudication.

4. Revenue relied upon the following two judgments to support its contention that the manufactured branded goods.:-

(i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Vs Australian Foods India (P) Ltd. reported in 2013 (287) E.L.T.385 (S.C.).

(ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs Marutham Textiles (P) Ltd. reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 219 (Tri.-LB).

5. Perusal of both the judgments above nowhere indicate that unbranded goods shall result in denial of SSI exemption. There is nothing apparent from show-cause notice demonstrating that the respondent instrumentality of the group company to claim SSI

exemption. In absence of corporate veil being lifted by the show-cause notice itself that fails to provide a basis for adjudication. Accordingly, entire adjudication fails to stand. Therefore, order of both the authorities sustain and Revenue appeal is dismissed accordingly.

6. We are guided to hold as above, on the basis of law laid down by apex court that show-cause notice is basis of adjudication, in the following judgments:-

(i) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs Toyo Engineering India Ltd. reported in 2006 (201) E.L.T.513 (S.C).

(ii) Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T.3 (S.C.).

(iii) Metal Forgings Vs Union of India Vs reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T.241 (S.C.) (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

ksr 28-01-2015

DRAFT Remarks

I II III

Date of dictation 27.01.2015

Draft Order - Date of typing 27.01.2015

Fair Order Typing 28.01.2015

Date of number and date of dispatch

5 E/00838/2004