2025-VIL-2177-CESTAT-CHE-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Manufacture of goods – Denial of exemption – Demand of duty – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Builders ware of Plastics – Appellant availed exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE on manufacture and clearance of excisable goods – Department issued show cause notice alleging that Appellant had wrongly availed exemption under Notification No.8/2003 – Adjudicating Authority denied exemption and confirmed demand of duty – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld order passed by Adjudicating Authority – Whether Appellant is eligible for exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE – HELD – impugned order denied benefit of exemption on ground that Appellant had used inputs bearing brand names or trademarks of third parties in manufacture of final excisable goods. Burden of proving that finished goods bear another person’s brand so as to indicate a trade connection, rests on Department. There is no satisfactory evidence that finished goods as removed from Appellant’s factory carried the brand name or trade name of some other person in such a manner as to indicate that goods belonged to or were the produce of such other person. Department had not established any intention on part of Appellant in affixing brand name of other persons In absence of such proof, legal embargo in Notification cannot be invoked to deny SSI benefit. Impugned Order-in-Appeal denying SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE is set aside. Appellant is entitled to benefit of SSI exemption – Appeal allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page