TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl.Commr.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER As per facts on record the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of fuel tanks and gear covers for diesel engines for their clients. As the said goods were being endorsed with the brand name of their customers, Revenue was of the view that S.S.I. Exemption being availed by the appellant, would not be available to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order on the point of limitation inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued by invoking the extended period. By drawing our attention on the Board's Circular No.71/71/94-CX dated 20.07.1994 it stands submitted that in terms of the said Circular affixing of goods with the brand name of purchaser would not make the assessee as disentitled to the benefit of small scale Notification. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, Indore [2005 (188) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. It stands held in the said decision that Clause 4 of Notification No.1/93-CE does not provide that exemption is lost only for goods which are sold in the market or which reached the ultimate customers. If the goods are endorsed with the brand name of the customers, who is further using the same in the manufacture of his final product, the benefit of small s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red (supra), the larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Industries vs. CCE, BBSR [2000 (119) ELT 30] stands not approved and over-ruled. This leads to an inevitable conclusion that prior to the decision in the case of Kohinoor Elastics, the earlier decisions of the Tribunal including the one of larger Bench in the case of Prakash Industries were in favour of the assessee. I....