9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as 'Branded Goods' not eligible for SSI exemption in terms of para 4 of the Notification No. 9/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99. As regards the case law of 'Two Star v. A.C., Central Excise-1981 (8) E.L.T. 865 (Bombay) cited by the appellants, which held 'that a manufacturer will not be disentitled to the benefits of an exemption notification merely because the goods are manufactured by him under the customers brand name provided he satisfies all the conditions of the notification'. I find, the above case law cited by the appellants is for a very old period when there were no specific conditions and Explanations laid down for clearance of 'Branded Goods' in the relevant SSI exemption Notification. In view of the above, the appeal is rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chinery only to suit the manufacturing needs of the customer, the benefit of SSI Exemption should not be denied so long as they are made to order as per the design and specification of a particular manufacturer and sold to that manufacturer for his own use." In support of his contention he cited and relied upon the decisions in the following cases :- 1. Tracko International v. C.C.E. - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 571 2. Globe Circuits (India) v. C.C.E. - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 493 3. Devkinandan & Sons v. C.C.E. - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 469. 4. Panchsheel Enterprises v. C.C.E. - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 494. Learned Representative, therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed. 4. Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR submits that concession under clause 4 of Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad to be followed. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to bring to our notice any material to show that this procedure was followed. The Tribunal, was therefore, wrong in allowing the appeal of the respondent and directing that the benefit of the said notification be given to it. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs." Learned DR, therefore, submits that the appellant was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. He, therefore, prays that appeal may be rejected. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the case-law cited by the learned representative of the company as also the learned DR. We also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
