9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utreja, Proprietor of the appellant s firm appeared in person. According to him the appellants are manufacturers of welding electrical transformers and air compressors and they were a small scale unit. Their production during the year 1988-89 was much below Rs. 15 lakhs which was the exemption limit for purposes of Notification No. 175/86. In the impugned order the Collector had dis-allowed their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not affixed the said brand names by themselves. They contended that paragraph 7 of the Notification is not applicable to their case and the Collector has wrongly applied the said provisions in their case for denying them the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86. 2. The ld. DR drew attention to the paragraph 9 of the impugned order in which the Collector had summarised the submissions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not applicable in their case. 3. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellants are a SSI unit. Notification No. 175/86 at the relevant time allowed an exemption upto Rs. 15 lakhs for SSI units manufacturing specified goods. There is nothing on record to show that they have exceeded limits specified under the said Notification. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the brand names on the goods before it was sold. I find force in this contention. The impugned order does not refer to any documents or other evidence to show that there was any arrangements by which the appellants have themselves affixed the brand name on the goods before they were sent to the purchasers. 4. Paragraph 7 of the Notification may come into play only if the manufacturer himself af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
