COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH versus M/S KHANNA INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH versus M/S KHANNA INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

The exemption under Notification No.175/86-CE is goods-specific and a manufacturer claiming exemption must be eligible in respect of the specified goods. Since the respondents affixed goods with the brand name of a trader who is not a manufacturer of the specified goods, they are not entitled to the exemption; the intention of the notification is clear and the order of CEGAT is indefensible.

Parties
Appellant: Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh; Respondents: Khanna Industries and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court: Appeal From CEGAT Final Order
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed; matter remanded to CEGAT for consideration of extended period of limitation.
Legal Topics
Exemption Notification, Brand Name Eligibility, Small Scale Industry Exemption, Extended Period of Limitation
Taxation Central Excise Exemption Notification Brand Name Eligibility Small Scale Industry Exemption Extended Period of Limitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh

Appellant

Khanna Industries and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court: Appeal From CEGAT Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether assessees using brand name of a trader (not manufacturer of specified goods) can claim benefit under Notification No.175/86-CE
  2. 2 Whether notification is goods-specific or manufacturer-specific
  3. 3 Applicability of extended period of limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The exemption under Notification No.175/86-CE is goods-specific and a manufacturer claiming exemption must be eligible in respect of the specified goods. Since the respondents affixed goods with the brand name of a trader who is not a manufacturer of the specified goods, they are not entitled to the exemption; the intention of the notification is clear and the order of CEGAT is indefensible.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed; matter remanded to CEGAT for consideration of extended period of limitation.

Orders

  • Matter remanded to CEGAT to consider the plea on applicability of extended period of limitation.