9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. The Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, who adjudicated the matter observed that as M/s. Yamuna were not eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., the goods manufactured by M/s. Densons affixed with the brand name Densons of M/s. Yamuna - in-eligible person - were not eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption. He held that M/s. Densons were not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 in respect of HIP Moulds valued Rs. 4,02,290/- manufactured and cleared by them in the brand name Densons during the period 18-11-1991 to 22-1-1991 without payment of central excise duty. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 66,377.85 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. 2. The matter was heard on 6-6-2000 when Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate submitted that it was not correct that the brand name owners, M/s. Yamuna were not eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption, and if the value of the exempted goods is excluded from their aggregate value of clearances, they would have satisfied the eligibility criterion. He referred to the grounds of appeal and relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the machine, and from bottom, wooden moulds are forced by pressure, and then below the sheet, vacuum is created; then HIP sheet comes to the same size of moulds. Then it is cut according to the needs. 4. The product so obtained was used as components for cable jointing kits. Electrical and or telegraph cables are of considerable length. They have to be joined so that they can go into running length as if they are original. Joints have to be insulated in such a manner so that they are dust, air and waterproof ensuring continued supply of power. The HIP moulds are used in this operation (refer para-2 of the XL Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 530 (Bombay). 5. M/s. Densons were affixing the above mentioned HIP Moulds with the brand name 'Densons', which belonged to M/s. Yamuna. M/s. Yamuna was a unit of M/s. Densons Engineers. The inter-relationship of M/s. Densons Poly Products Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Densons Engineers and M/s. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. is not on record. It is however, seen from another show cause notice dated 19-8-1992 issued to M/s. Kiran Rubber Industries that M/s. Densons and M/s. Yamuna were sister concerns. M/s. Yamuna was a unit of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o availing of the benefit of modvat credit. The Tribunal's decision referred to above as reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal) is also relevant. 7. The small scale exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986 was amended by the amending Notification No. 223/87-C.E. dated 22-9-1987 (effective from 1-10-1987), and para-7 in Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was inserted as under :- 7. 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 Notification. For the purposes of this para, brand name or trade name was to mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say, a name or a mark such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words or writing, which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. The goods HIP Moulds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in respect of the goods which the appellants claimed to be exempt. The contention that M/s. Yamuna were entitled to the exemption had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. There is no material on record to support the contention of the appellants in this regard. We have already referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Densons Pultroteknik, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 628 (T). 10. Reference has been made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Kiran Rubber Indus. v. CCE, Chandigarh, in appeal No. E/2935/93-B1, when under Final Order No. E/1598/98-B1, dated 14-10-1998, the Tribunal in para 4 had observed as under - 4. We find that the appellant is manufacturing parts/components according to the specifications of buyers. These are not traded but are further used in manufacture of Cable Jointing Kits. Therefore, the affixing of brand name/trade name of buyer does not bring the appellant s case within the scope of Para 7 of notification No. 175/86 as held by the Madras High Court and Tribunal in their decisons. It is, therefore, held that the appellant would be eligible for exemption under the small scale notification in respect of these moulds. They wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
