Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (8) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... during the period relevant for the purposes of said appeal were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86. 1.3 The process of manufacture as given by the appellant in their memo of appeal is as follows :- (i) The appellant is preparing base plate drawing for D.G. Set at his factory. (ii) It is undertaking fabrication job (outside) of the factory fabricated M.S. Rail as per above mentioned base plate drawing. (iii) The appellant is purchasing coupling from M/s. Pie Engineering Ltd., Calcutta, which are supplied to fabrication for boring and key way cutting for fitment with alternator. (iv) Alternator is purchased from M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co.Ltd., Bangalore/Hubli [in short Kirloskar (Electric)]. (v) Diesel Eng .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he alleged ground that as the appellants are manufacturing diesel generating sets after assembling the diesel engines and alternators which bore the brand name of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. and M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. respectively, it amounts to manufacture of diesel engines with the brand name of `Kirloskar . As such the appellants are hit by para 7 of Notification No. 175/86. It was also alleged that the appellants are authorised original equipment assembler for generator set by M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company, the D.G. sets with brand name of `Kirloskar were not entitled to the benefit of notification. Extended period of limitation was invoked by alleging that the appellants have suppressed the fact that they were using the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l authorities. The classification lists disclosing the entire facts were filed by the appellants and were approved by the proper officer. The adjudicating authority has found against them by observing that they did not declare that they were manufacturing `Kirloskar Diesel Generating Sets . He submitted that as the appellants were not manufacturing the `Kirloskar D.G. Sets, there was no need to mention the same in the classification list or on the gate passes. 3. Countering the arguments Shri S.N. Ghosh, ld. JDR submitted that it is not a simple case of use of inputs affixed with a particular brand name. The appellants are authorised original equipment assembler of diesel generating sets. The certificate issued by M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s that the warranty of the D.G. Sets is being given by the appellants who are the manufacturer of the D.G. Sets. The writing of the word `Kirloskar on the invoices is only to attract customers and will not effect para 7 of Notification so as to oust them from the benefit of this small scale exemption notification. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that to fall within the mischief of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986, the conditions of the same are to be fulfilled. The said para 7 is reproduced below for convenience of reference :- 7. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the ld. Adv. on the decision of the Madras Bench in the case of Forest Industries (P) Ltd. is well appropriated. The decisions referred to by the ld. JDR are in different facts and circumstances and the ratio of the same is not applicable in the instant case. We take note of another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Trimurti Weldmesh (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. - reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 419, wherein it was held that embossing the brand name at the forging stage, before such forgings were received at the appellants unit for further working upon will not be hit by the exclusion clause contained in para 7 of the Notification as it was not the appellant who was affixing any brand name/trade name in the goods. As such as observe that in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates