9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94-B1 have been filed by the Department against a common order of Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 20-11-1990. Appeal No. E/1700/91-B1 has been filed by M/s. Allied Industries against the impugned order of Addl. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 18-1-1991. 3. Since the above appeals involve identical issue relating to scope and interpretation of 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 particularly with reference to use of alleged brand name in terms of Para 7 which is as under :- The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs Anfilco by putting the name of MICO on top purely for the purpose of MICO. The appellants are not trading in these goods namely End caps in the market even after manufacturing them for Anfilco, who is using the same End caps and supplying the whole products in their own name to M/s. MICO. Appellants customers namely Anfilco is not separately marketing End caps as such even as spare parts. M/s. Anfilco Ltd. are using these in manufacture of filters for automobiles and then supply to M/s. MICO. It was alleged that the end caps in question are neither purchased nor sold in the market in the commercial sense and are meant only for the exclusive use in the filter as it is essential as inner component part. Ld Counsel further urged that it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchases in the market and are sold only to customers for further manufacture, such manufacturing activity would not come within the meaning of concept of brand name under Clause 7 to 177/86 for denying the benefit of the same to the assessee or manufacturer. Ld. Counsel further urged that this clarification of the Board was not before the Ld. Addl. Collector when the impugned order was passed. Finally Ld. Counsel submitted that now a clarification has been authentically issued by the CBEC which is binding on the subordinate authorities. This Bench take note of the same and on application of the clarification of the higher authorities, grant relief by allowing their appeals and disposing the file of Revenue. 7. Shri Arora, Ld. DR submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... * * * * 9. Since the above clarification has bearing on the issue to be decided and will have overall implication on the assessee manufacturer, we are inclined that the matter should go to the original authority as Revenue s contended by Ld. DR. In view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against and all the appeals are remitted to the Central Excise, New Delhi for reconsideration of the issue by Deputy Collector in the light of our observations above and also in the light of clarification of the Board cited above. This is open to the parties to put forward all the pleas and rely upon any order-in-law. The appeals stand remanded to the Collector/Deputy Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. We note that in order to av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
