1994 (12) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of Delay Application.
2. Common order of Central Excise, New Delhi.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86.
4. Eligibility of the appellant to benefit from the notification.
5. Appeal against the decision taken by the original adjudicating authorities.
6. Clarification by the CBEC on the issue.
7. Remand of the matter to the original authorities for reconsideration.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a Condonation of Delay Application filed by the Department due to the delay caused by filing supplementary appeals. The delay was condoned. Multiple appeals were filed against a common order of Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 20-11-1990. The appeals revolve around the interpretation of Notification No. 175/86, particularly regarding the use of a brand name. All the appeals were consolidated and disposed of by a common order.

The main issue in Appeal No. E/1700/91-B1 was the appellant's eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The appellant, a manufacturer of End Caps, supplied them to another company, which used them in manufacturing filters for automobiles under a different brand name. The appellant argued that the end caps were not traded in the market separately but were an essential component used exclusively in the filters. The CEGAT, New Delhi, decided the issue in favor of the assessee, leading to the Department filing multiple appeals against this decision.

The Department argued that a clarification issued by the CBEC on the issue post the impugned orders should be considered. The CBEC clarified that when goods manufactured by a Small Industrial Unit are affixed with a brand name but not traded in the market separately, the concept of brand name under the notification should not apply to deny benefits to the manufacturer. The Department requested a remand to the original authorities for reconsideration in light of this clarification.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found the CBEC's clarification relevant to the issue at hand. The matter was remitted to the original authority for reconsideration in light of the Board's clarification. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the Central Excise, New Delhi, for a fresh decision, allowing both parties to present their arguments. The same adjudicating authority was directed to decide on all the appeals to avoid conflicting views.