TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondents were eligible to avail benefit of the exemption notification No.175/86-CE and para 7 thereof will not be attracted in the present case. Appeals filed by the Revenue questioning correctness of the decision rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Customs, Chandigarh [short 'Commissioner (Appeals)], were dismissed. 2 . The background fads in a nutshell are as follows: Respondents manufacture Brass Sanitary Bathroom fittings falling under Sub-heading 8481.80 and 8481.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short 'Tariff Act'). The goods were packed in cardboard boxes on which stylised brand name "ARK" was printed and labels affixed on cardboard boxes also showed the brand name "ARK" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible for the benefit of Notification No.175/86-CE since it was not holding any L-4 licence; the casting of pig iron manufactured in their proprietary concern M/s. Arkson Engg. Co. was exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.208/ 83 dated 1.8.1983 and no declaration as required to be filed under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Rules'), was filed by it; castings failing under Sub-heading 7325.10 of the Tariff were specified in the Annexure to the Notification. In addition the Additional Commissioner, relying upon decision in the case of Mentha Allied Products vs. Union of India 1995 (77) ELT A-133 (SC), concluded that aggregate sale figure of M/s Arkson Pvt. Ltd. was more than Rs.2 crores during 1990-91 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended period of limitation was not applicable. 5 . Revenue preferred appeals before the CEGAT which endorsed view of the Commissioner (Appeals), but did not record any finding on the question of extended period of limitation. 6. Stand of the appellant is that the goods were cleared by the respondents who are manufacturers and the brand owner is a trader. Even if the brand owner is a manufacturer he is required to be manufacturer of specified goods. CEGAT erred in holding that if the brand owner is a manufacturer; it is not required to be manufacturer of the specified goods. The small scale industry is not manufacturer of specified goods, and as such is not entitled to any exemption. 7 . In response, learned counsel for the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 71, 73 and 74 ; (ii) all goods falling under heading Not 21.06, 25.04, 36,03. 40.11, 40.12, 40.13, 87.01, 87.02, 87.03, 81.04, 81.05, 87.06, 91.01 91.02 and 96.13; (iii) all goods faIlings under sub-heading Nos, 2101.10, 2101.20, 3304.00, 3305.90, 4005.00, 4006.10, 4008.21 and 9505.10 and (iv) Sandalwood oil strips of plastic intended for weaving fabric or sacks, polyurethane foam and articles of polyuiethane foam broadcast television receiver sets refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery, and parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person." 10 . Clause 7 of the notification after amendment deals with exemption of specified goods arid circumstances where the exemption is not available. Stand of the respondent is that if manufacturer need not be a manufacturer of sped fled goods, and brand name as used is entitled to exemption contained in the notification, it is really of no consequence whether he is manufacturer of goods. The stand is clearly untenable. The notification is 'goods specific'. What is required is that a perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 (Tribunal)*, the Larger Bench of CECAT has held that affixation of specified good with a brand name of ineligible Indian manufacturer will entail disqualification from exemption. It is further held that the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No.175/86- CE, as amended, is not available to the specified goods if they are affixed With the brand name or trade name of a trader who is not a manufacturer. The judgment of the Larger Bench hi Namtech Systems Ltd. (supra) has not been considered by the CEGAT in the present case. 14. The intention is crystal clear that at the relevant lime, the unit should be eligible for exemption under the Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
