Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Berry Anand Lighting (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Berry Anand Lighting (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 13, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18666

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/18666
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jul 13, 2000
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Berry Anand Lighting (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(127)ELT783TriDel

Excerpt

1. the respondents are the manufacturers of vacuum and gas filled bulbs. they cleared about 98% of their total production in branded goods in the name of mysore, ece, laxman sylvania etc. paying normal rate of duty. they also manufactured bulbs in their own name and availed benefit of ssi notification no. 9/98, dated 26-6-1998 on consessional rate of duty. they cleared aluminuim scrap generated during the course of manufacture of branded goods, during the month of march, 1998 after availing the benefit of notification no. 38/97-c.e., dated 27-6-1997 which was sought to be denied on the ground that the scrap bore the brand name/trade name of another person and was hence not eligible to the benefit of notification no. 38/97. the assistant commissioner confirmed a demand of rs. 1034/- and imposed a penalty of rs. 1500/-. the commissioner (appeals) set aside the order of adjudicating authority holding that scrap cleared by the respondents does not bear a brand name or trade name of another person and hence the benefit of exemption under notification no. 38/97 is available to the scrap. hence this appeal by the revenue.2. we have heard shri r.k. sharma, learned dr, who reiterates the findings of the assistant commissioner and the grounds of appeal and shri v.k. kohli, commercial officer of the respondent company. we find that aluminium scrap has been classified under cet sub-heading 7602.90 which is specified goods as per the annexure to notification no. 38/97.it is not disputed that the scrap generated during the course of manufacture of the respondents final products does not bear any trade name/brand name. the department seeks to deny the benefit of notification no. 38/97 to the scrap on the ground that the intention of the government is to extend concession to ssi units so that they can compete with the large scale manufacturers/brand name owners and hence when a small-scale unit manufactures goods bearing others brand name, then such small-scale unit automatically.....

Full Judgment

1. The respondents are the manufacturers of Vacuum and Gas filled bulbs. They cleared about 98% of their total production in branded goods in the name of Mysore, ECE, Laxman Sylvania etc. paying normal rate of duty. They also manufactured bulbs in their own name and availed benefit of SSI Notification No. 9/98, dated 26-6-1998 on consessional rate of duty. They cleared aluminuim scrap generated during the course of manufacture of branded goods, during the month of March, 1998 after availing the benefit of Notification No. 38/97-C.E., dated 27-6-1997 which was sought to be denied on the ground that the scrap bore the brand name/trade name of another person and was hence not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 38/97. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 1034/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1500/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of Adjudicating Authority holding that scrap cleared by the respondents does not bear a brand name or trade name of another person and hence the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 38/97 is available to the scrap. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.

2. We have heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned DR, who reiterates the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the grounds of appeal and Shri V.K. Kohli, Commercial Officer of the respondent company. We find that aluminium scrap has been classified under CET sub-heading 7602.90 which is specified goods as per the Annexure to Notification No. 38/97.

It is not disputed that the scrap generated during the course of manufacture of the respondents final products does not bear any trade name/brand name. The Department seeks to deny the benefit of Notification No. 38/97 to the scrap on the ground that the intention of the Government is to extend concession to SSI units so that they can compete with the large scale manufacturers/brand name owners and hence when a small-scale unit manufactures goods bearing others brand name, then such small-scale unit automatically becomes ineligible to SSI benefit. However, we see no force in this contention in view of the clear language of paragraph 4 of Notification No. 38/97 which stipulates that exemption under the Notification is not applicable in case of goods bearing a brand name or trade name of another person. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the contention that waste arising during the manufacture of branded goods should also be treated as branded goods so as to take it out of the purview of Notification No. 38/97. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Berry Anand Lighting (P) Ltd. Same Subject MRTP