COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR versus M/S. SRI GANGANAGAR BOTTLING CO.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 669 · Decided: 31-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR 
v. 
MIS. SRI GANGANAGAR BOTILING CO. 
AUGUST 31, 2007 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
Central Excise Act, 1944/Central Excise Rules, 1944; R.(1)(8)/ 
Notification No. 1193-CE issued thereunder: 
A 
B 
Exemption Notification-Aerated water-Assessee a.fftxing brand name C 
belonging to another manufacturer on its product-Show cause Notice-
Dropping the proceedings against the assessee, Authority held that actual 
manufacturing of the product not necessary for claiming exemption under the 
Notification-Reversed by Appellate Authority-Appeal filed by the assessee 
allowed by Tribunal-On appeal, Held: The manufacturer whose brand name D 
used by the assessee is a small scale industrial unit eligible for availing 
exemption under the Notification in respect of the specified product, the 
product in question-Exemption Notification is goods specific-Requirement 
is that the manufacturer should be eligible for availing exemption under the 
Notification in respect of specified goods-Any other interpretation would 
render the Notification redundant-Hence, Tribunal rightly held the assessee E 
eligible for exemption in terms of the Notification-Interpretation of Statutes. 
Respondent-Company, a small industrial unit, is manufacturer of aerated 
water and cleared the same after affixing the brand name "Citra" belonged 
to Mis. Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd., which was eligible for exemption 
as SSI unit under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993. The Revenue F 
issued a show cause notice proposing to recover Central Excise Duty from 
the assessee on the clearances of the said branded goods alleging that the 
exemption under the Notification was not available to such goods. Assistant 
Commissioner, Revenue dropped the proceedings accepting the defence of the 
assessee that it was sufficient for purposes of Para 4 of Notification No.1/93 G 
that the brand name of the owner should also be eligible for exemption under 
the Notification and it was not necessary that the assessee should actually 
manufacture identical goods and market the same after affixing the brand 
name. An appeal was preferred by the Revenue to the Appellate Authority, 
which was allowed by the Appellate Authority. Assessee preferred appeal before H 
669 
670 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007} 9 $.C.R. 
A the Tribunal, which was allowed by the Tribunal. Hence the ,present appeal: 
B 
Appellant-Revenue contended that the .real purpose of paragraph 4 of 
the Notification has been lost sight of by the Tribunal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.l. In the instant case the brand name of owner 'Mis Limca' 
which is SSI unit had eligibility for availing the exemption under the 
-+ 
Notification No.1193-CE in respect of the products. Therefore, t~e question 
'r. 
c 
whether there is brand name of owner for exemption under ·the Notification 
did not arise. (Para 5) .(672-A] 
1.2. The brand. name of owner was also a unit eligible for exemption 
under the Notification and was t~e manufacture <>f specified goods. That being 
so, the view taken by the Tribunal has to be accepted. (Para 6) 1672-A, BJ 
Namtech Systems ltd v. Commissioner oj Central Excise, New Delhi, 
D (2000) 115 E.L.T. 238 Tribunal, referred to. 
1.3. Clause 7 of the Notification after amendment deals with exemption 
of specified goods and circumstances where the exemption is not available. 
The notification is 'goods specific'. W,hat :is required is that a person, who 
E may be a manufacturer, must be eligible for exem~ption under the notification 
in respect of the specified goods. Any <>th er interpretation would render the 
purpose for which the notification has been issued redundant. (Para to) 
1.4. The notification is 'goods specific'. The emphasis is on 'specified 
goods'. The intention is crystal clear t~at at the' relevant .time, .the unit should 
F 
be eligible for exemption und~r the Notification ,in respect of the 'specified 
goods'. (Paras 1tand12J ,(674-C, D! 
G 
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Mis. Khanna Industries 
& Ors., (20061 9 Supp. SCR 725, relied on. 
. 
, 
. 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8563 .of 200 l. 
From the Final Order No. t l/200UC dated l9.l.200l ·Ofthe Customs, 
Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/2922/ 
2000-C. 
' 
K. Radhakrishnan, Binu Tamta, T.A. Khan, Ajay Sh.anna and B. Krishna 
H Prasad for the Appellant. 
). 
COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE v

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.