9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents and confirmed the duty demand on them besides imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under :- 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of membrane switches as per the drawings and specifications given to them by their customers. They filed classification lists claiming benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as SSI unit. Their classification lists were approved by the Assistant Collector but they were issued show cause notice by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise that they were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification as they were manufacturing and clearing membrane switches under the brand name/trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the customers had used those goods as inputs for the manufacture of their final products viz. electrical/electronic machinery and equipment and as such the respondents could not be said to have used the brand name of other person in the manufacture of the goods for having never sold the same in the market so as to deny them benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. In support of his contention, the counsel has placed reliance on Globe Circuits India v. C.C.E., New Delhi, 1999 (109) E.L.T. 493 and Devkinandan & Sons v. C.C.E., Chandigarh, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 67. 8. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 9. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents had manufactured the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 175/86-C.E. leaves no doubt in one's mind that the benefit of this notification would not be available to a manufacturer of the specified goods, if those are affixed with the brand name/trade name of another person who was not eligible to the benefit of the notification. This very view has been expressed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Namtech Systems Ltd. v. C.C.E., (supra). It is not the requirement of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 that the goods manufactured under the brand name of another ineligible person must have been sold in the market by the manufacturer himself or by another person at whose instance the same had been manufactured, in order to deny its benefit to him. It is enough for denyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
