1998 (5) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. regarding affixing brand names on specified goods.
- Applicability of Trade Notices 83/87 and 85/87 in determining eligibility for exemption under the notification.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.: The case involved the manufacturing of "M.S. Boxes & Covers for Chokes" by the respondents, affixed with brand names of Bajaj and Crompton. The Collector (Appeals) relied on Trade Notices 83/87 and 85/87 to determine that the respondents, despite affixing brand names, were not in violation of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. This para exempts specified goods unless affixed with a brand name of an ineligible person. The Trade Notices clarified the definition of brand names and exempted certain goods like collapsible tubes with brand names.

2. Applicability of Trade Notices: The Revenue contended that the Trade Notices were not applicable to M.S. Boxes and Covers for Chokes, thus challenging the eligibility of the respondents for the notification's benefit. However, the Tribunal noted that the respondents were not manufacturing chokes but only the Boxes and Covers, supplying them to choke manufacturers. As per the Trade Notices, units producing goods with brand names are eligible for exemption, which should extend to the respondents as they were not manufacturing complete chokes and supplied to eligible manufacturers.

3. Decision: Considering that the respondents were only producing M.S. Boxes and Covers for Chokes, not complete chokes, and based on the interpretation of the Trade Notices, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, affirming the respondents' entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986. The judgment emphasized that as long as the goods were not complete chokes and were supplied to eligible manufacturers, the exemption under the notification applied, as per the Trade Notices' guidance.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. concerning brand names on specified goods and the relevance of Trade Notices in determining eligibility for exemption. It underscored the importance of the nature of goods manufactured and supplied in relation to the brand names affixed, ensuring compliance with the notification's provisions for granting exemptions.