VANSHA FRAGRANCES PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND EXCISE, SHILLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relevant for the purpose of the present Central Excise Appeal have been recorded in the previous orders, particularly in the order dated January 27, 2022. However, the essential features require to be repeated.

(2.) The appellant manufactures soya chunks under the brand name of Gulab. The first dispute between the parties is as to when the appellant commenced manufacturing the product under the Gulab brand. This is relevant since the exemption claimed by the appellant under the Central Excise notification does not extend the benefit to products manufactured under a brand name not owned by the manufacturer. In other words, if a manufacturer produces the product which is marketed under a brand name not belonging to the manufacturer, the manufacturer would not be entitled to the exemption.

(3.) There is no dispute that the manufacture of the relevant goods commenced in 2002-03 and the appellant appears to have laboured under the misconception that the product was not liable to excise duty. In 2006 the appellant made enquiries with the excise authorities and, on the appellant's declaration as to the nature of the product that it manufactured, the excise authorities opined that duty attracted was nil. However, in February, 2007, the excise authorities discovered the exact nature of the product and that it attracted excise duty. Shortly upon the appellant being informed that the appellant was liable to pay excise duty on the soya chunks manufactured by it, by February 27, 2007 an amount of money was deposited by the appellant and it was represented by the appellant to the department that the entirety of the excise duty leviable, together with interest thereon, had been deposited.