COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR versus M/S. HIRA CEMENT

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 1077 · Decided: 02-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'( 
• 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR 
A 
v. 
M/S. HJRA CEMENT 
FEBRUARY 2, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 : 
Exemption Notification No.1193-CE dated 28.2.93-SSI Exemption 
claimed by assessee-Department denying same on the ground that assessee C 
ajf1Xing brand name of another unit on its product-Held: Having regard to 
the definition of the brand name as contained in Explanation IX to the 
notification dated 28.2.1993, the matter requires fresh consideration by the 
Tribunal upon taking into consideration the fact of the matter. 
Respondent-assessee has been engaged in the manufacture of cement. 
It had"been claiming benefit ofSSI exemption under Notification No.1193-CE 
dated 28.2.1993. Show cause Notices were issued by Department to the 
assessee proposing to disallow the SSI Exemption and to recover duty not paid 
on the ground that assessee was clearing goods manufactured by it bearing 
D 
. the brand name of another unit. In the proceedings, assessee was held to be E 
not entitled to such exemption. On appeal, Commissioner dropped the 
proceedings. 
Department unsuccessfully filed appeal before the Tribunal. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to Tribunal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The purport and object of grant of exemption to a SSI unit is 
clear and unambiguous. It can be availed of, provided that they satisfy the 
conditions precedent therefor. The criteria for determining the eligibility of 
F 
an entrepreneur for becoming entitled to have the benefit of exemption G 
notification, must be construed strictly. [1084-E] 
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., [2005] 4 
SCC 272 and Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association, 
1077 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A (2005) 6 SCALE 683, relied on. 
Commissioner of C. Ex., Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, (2004) 
165 ELT 481 : [2004[ ll SCC 801 and Commissioner of Central Excise, 
Chandigarh-Iv. Mahaan Du1ries. (2004) 166 EL T 23, referred to. 
B 
Emkay Investment Pvt. ltd. v. Commissioner, (2000) 124 ELT 741, 
overruled. 
2. Having regard to the definition of the brand name as contained in 
Explanation IX to the notification dated 28.2.1993, the matter requires fresh 
consideration by the Tribunal upon taking into consideration the fact of the 
C matter. If, however, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion or is of the opinion 
that further investigation in facts may be necessary, it may pass such order 
or orders as it may think fit and proper. [ 1086-EJ 
Government of WB. v. Tarun K. Roy and Ors., [2004) I SCC 347, relied 
D on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4424 of2004. 
From the Final Order No. 145/2004-B dated 22.1.2004 of the Customs, 
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/682/ 
E 03-NB(B). 
G.E. Vahanvati and S.G. P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant. 
R. Santhanan, Rajendra Singhvi and Ashok Kumar Singh for the 
Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 'This appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise 
Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") is directed against a final judgment and order 
dated 22. l.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate 
G Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. 145/2004-B whereby and whereunder the 
appeal preferred by the Appellant herein was dismissed. 
The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The assessee is one 
Mis. H ira Cement. It carries on business of manufacture of cement in the town 
of Raipur. It is a small-scale industry (SSI) being a proprietory concern of one 
H Shri Suresh Agrawal. Another industry, known as Mis. Hira Industries Limited, 
COMMR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR 1·. HIRA CEMENT [SINHA, J.) 
) 079 
is also a manufacturer of cement having a factory in the town of Jagdalpur A 
which is situated at a distance of aLout 300 kms. from Raipur. Hira Industries 
Limited was incorporated and registered under the Companies Act on or 
about 20th October, 1983 whereas the Res?ondent herein was set up in the 
year 1988. Hira Industries Limited is not a SS! unit. The unit of the Respondent 
was earlier known as Bajrang Bali Cement whereas that of Hira Industries B 
Limited was known as Jai Bajrang Cement Ltd. The capacity of production of 
the Respondent's cement industry is about 60 tonnes per day whereas that 
of Hira Industries Limited is 150 tonnes per day. 
As a SS! unit, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.