TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all presently advert to the relevant portions of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Notification. Suffice it to state at this juncture that the Notification accords exemption to goods produced by small scale industrial undertakings. The Units of which the petitioners are the Associations, and which Units hereinafter shall be called the Units, are ancillary to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, briefly referred to as BHEL, the fourth respondent. They fabricate certain components required by BHEL. It is only in respect of such components, manufactured by the Units, exemption was asked for as per the Notification. The exemption was not accorded to the Units, on the ground that clause (7) read with Explanation VIII of the Notification is attracted to the components manufactured by the Units. This contention put forth by respondents 1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned single Judge, and as a result, the writ petitions were dismissed. As already noted, these writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge in the writ petitions. 2. The learned single Judge, in substance, opined that certain ste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inscriptions does not convey anything, much less as to. what headings or details they are referable. This is only a matter of explanation offered by the parties. It is stated that the first inscription relates to Quantity; second to Weight; third to BHEL Work Order Number; fourth to Product Number; fifth to the Code Number allotted to the individual ancillary Units of BHEL and sixth to the destination of the goods. We have not heard any submission from Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, saying that the inscriptions by way of stencilling on the components manufactured by the Units, bore or bear any other marking or inscription. The learned single Judge proceeded only on the above factual basis and we are also obliged to proceed on the same factual basis. 4. Then the question is as to whether these markings or inscriptions will come within the mischief of clause 7 read with Explanation VIII of the Notification as contended by respondents 1 to 3. Now the occasion comes for setting down those portions of the Notification, namely, clause 7 and Explanation VIII. The relevant portion of clause 7 reads as follows : "The exemption contained in this n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ponents may amount to invented words or writings. But the markings or inscriptions have not been and are not being used by BHEL at all. They have been used and are being used by the Units and Units alone, may be pursuant to the contractual requirements between BHEL and the Units, even as per the averments in the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3. The markings or inscriptions, individually or cumulatively do not go to constitute a name or a mark such as symbol, monogram etc., of BHEL, used by BHEL in relation to the components manufactured by the Units. They may have a purpose to serve. But certainly they do not by themselves constitute a name or mark used by BHEL. But the stress, which we could spell out cumulatively from the language used in Explanation VIII, is that the name or mark such as symbol, monogram, etc., should have been used by BHEL for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the components and BHEL using such name or mark. It is true that by a bare looking at the inscriptions or markings, or by a bare visual inspection, there need not be an indication of the identity of BHEL. But fundamentally these markings or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to appreciate and accept the reasonings expressed by the learned single Judge for denying the exemption asked for by the petitioners under the Notification. It is true that Exemption is the creation of the statute and must be construed strictly and cannot be extended. But here apparently the Exemption under the Notification applies to the components manufactured by the Units. The endeavour on the part of respondents 1 to 3 is to deny that exemption by invoking the clause of exception to the Exemption. The Exemption certainly should not be whittled down by importing limitations not specifically inserted by the language used in Exception clause. 7. Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for tbe respondents, however would venture to suggest to us that the respondents should be allowed to deal with the matter factually, doing the assessment process, prosecuted in respect of the components manufactured by the Units and they are prepared to do it impartially. This suggestion is being counteracted by Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by pointing out that at no point of time earlier the respondents gave an ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
