9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant short length of pipes, out of which the appellant manufactured couplings, fitted them on to other pipes with which they were to be put, and returned the assembly to Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. The appellant did not pay any duty on this job work, claiming the exemption contained in Notification 214/86. It also did not pay any duty on the couplings that it manufactured on its own account, claiming the exemption contained in Notification 16/97. This notification provides exemption to goods of specified value subject to fulfilment of the various conditions contained in that notification. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to demand duty to both the couplings claimed as having been made under job work and the other couplings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his claim in order to dispose of the appeal. As we have noted, the notice by no means alleges that the demand for duty is based on the ground that the appellant undertook was not job work. The Commissioner s order in this regard is very clear. He says in paragraph 35 The Noticees are also manufacturing coupling for M/s. MSL and also engaged in cold drawing of tubes under the provisions of Rule 57F(4), and have claimed exemption under Notification 214/86, dt. 15-4-86, which exempts from duty the goods manufactured on job work basis. I further find that the show cause notice also mentions that M/s. JDIL are doing job work for M/s. MSL but as the monogram API, along with the name JDIL is marked on the couplings supplied as fittings along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ications thus ensuring a level of quality which the buyers can rely upon. It is certainly not the Department s claim that the API is a manufacturer or trader. Had this been the case, it cannot be said that the use of the logo API indicates connection in the course of trade between the goods which bear the logo and API . The position that the Counsel for the appellant puts analogus to the goods bearing the initials of Bureau of Indian Standards, Bureau of Standards of United Kingdom. Therefore there was no basis for the denial of benefit of the notification. 6. The Commissioner has not dealt with the contention that the appellant raised before him that the structural material that it used would be entitled to be classifiable without p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o August 1998, spanning part of the financial year 1997-98 and 1998-99. It is the contention of the appellant that the clearances in 1997-98 amounted to Rs. 19.75 lakhs, the clearances in 1998-99 amounted to Rs. 18.60 lakhs. This figure has been arrived at by excluding the value of Rs. 13.75 of 1990 for the couplings which the appellant did not manufacture, but traded in. This value has therefore been included in the value of clearances. The Commissioner had not considered these submissions since he found that the benefit of the notification was not available to the goods which according to him bore a brand name. Now that we have held that this cannot be a valid reason to deny the benefit of the notification, the matter will have to go back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
