1997 (12) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The appellants were manufacturing Automobile Head Lamps and Accessories, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 77/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983. They were also manufacturing similar goods for M/s. Autolite (India) Ltd. bearing the brand name `Autopal'. This was in terms of an agreement between the two parties whereby M/s. Autolite were to reimburse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lf of a manufacture not exceeding Rs. 30 lakh in a financial year. The notification does not qualify in any manner clearances of those goods, which bear the brand name of another manufacturer or trader. Therefore, for the benefit of this notification to be claimed, it was not material whether the goods, so cleared, bore the brand name of the actual manufacturer or of another manufacturer or trader .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , value of such clearances cannot be excluded from the ambit of the notification. It is true that the present appellants were manufacturing goods on behalf of somebody else, but the manufacture was still by them. The show cause notice was not issued to the brand name owners and, therefore, the fact that the goods were manufactured on their behalf, is not material for interpreting the benefit of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X