1992 (6) TMI 123 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, regarding the exemption of Central Excise Duty on specified goods and the calculation of duty payable by a manufacturer based on the value of goods cleared under different brand names.

Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986:
The case involved a dispute over the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., where the respondents manufactured and cleared goods under their own brand and 'Bajaj' brand. The Assistant Collector contended that the respondents were only entitled to exemption up to an aggregate clearance value of Rs. 15 lakhs, as they were manufacturing goods under one heading of the Central Excise Tariff, irrespective of different brand names. The Collector (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the value of goods cleared under the 'Bajaj' brand should not be included in computing the exempted clearance value of Rs. 15 lakhs, as it was beyond the purview of the notification.

Calculation of Duty Payable:
The Revenue appealed against the Collector (Appeals) decision, arguing that the total value of clearances should include goods cleared on payment of duty, and duty should be paid on clearances exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs. The Revenue contended that the respondents were not entitled to any exemption beyond Rs. 15 lakhs, regardless of the brand name. The Tribunal analyzed the Notification's provisions and concluded that goods cleared under a brand name not eligible for SSI exemption should be charged at the normal rate of duty, but such goods should not be considered for computing the aggregate value of first clearances of Rs. 15 lakhs.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals), stating that the value of goods cleared under the 'Bajaj' brand should not be included in computing the aggregate value of first clearances of Rs. 15 lakhs under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and provided consequential relief to the respondents, if any.