By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 16, 2018: THIS is an appeal filed by the assessee in the year 2009.

The issue is whether the appellant is entitled to SSI exemption in terms of Notification 8/2003-CE.

During the scrutiny of records, it appeared that the appellant is engaged in printing as well as manufacture of textbook/exercise book falling under Ch. 48 of CETA, 1985.

It was noticed that the appellants have manufactured table diaries for Life Insurance Corporation on job work basis. LIC purchases these raw materials viz. paper, plastic paper and paperboard from the manufacturers and suppliesthe same directly to the appellant. The appellant further uses their own sticking material i.e. gum, thread and printing ink etc. All these table diaries are manufactured on job work basis. LIC reimburses the job work charges of Rs.5.95/- per diary as per the agreement.

During the investigation, the Proprietor in his statement, submitted that since their turnover is below one crore rupees they are entitled for SSI exemption. Furthermore, the printed diaries were distributed by LIC as complimentary gifts to Policy Holders, subscribers etc. inasmuch as they are not traded. Therefore, the mischief of brand name in terms of paragraph (4) of Notification number 8/2003-CE is not attracted. Reliance is also placed on the clarification given by the Board in its Circular No. 71/71/94-CX dated 27 October 1994 referring to the earlier SSI Notification No. 1/93-CE.

However, revenue held the view that the appellant is not entitled for SSI exemption as they have manufactured table diaries for LIC with the logo of LIC.

The CE duty demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and the order was upheld by the Commissioner(A).

In appeal before the CESTAT, the appellant reiterated their submission that no CE duty liability arises on the alleged ground that they had manufactured “branded goods”.

The Bench observed -

"6. …, we find that it is admitted fact that the diaries manufactured by the appellant for LIC have not been traded by LIC. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE read with Circular No. 71/71/94-CX dated 27/10/1994…"

The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2018-TIOL-563-CESTAT-MUM)