2012 (10) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .V. Murthy, Ashok Jindal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sidhartha Jain, FCA, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Sharma, Dy. Commissioner, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. Even though the stay application has been listed for hearing, after hearing both sides we find that the issue involved lies in a very narrow campass and does not require any further hearing to come to the conclusion. Therefore with the consent of both sides we take up the appeal itself for final hearing after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit. 2. The appellant procured some spare parts in addition to the one manufactured by them and supplied. It is the claim of the appellants that they manufacture some spare parts and some of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t it has always been the claim of the appellants that none of the spare parts was bought-out was sold by them or manufactured by them. In reply to show cause notice a statement to this effect was made. In spite of this, the Commissioner has recorded a finding that spare parts are bought-out as well as manufactured. Apart from the allegation in the show cause notice, there is no evidence in the form of statement, document or any other evidence has been mentioned by the ld. Commissioner which is the basis for him to come to the conclusion that bought-out spare parts which are in dispute in this case are also manufactured by the appellant. Therefore, we consider it sufficient to determine whether opening, packing, inspection, repacking and aff .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y received in disassembled form, its testing and labeling not amounts to manufacture. In the case of Crystal Sanitary Fittings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Delhi-II reported in 2000 (123) E.L.T. 1101 (Tribunal) it was held that mere fixing of brand name would not amount to manufacture . In this case Note 6 to Section 11 which was relied upon in the show cause notice was also considered. In the case of Commr. of C. Ex., Mumbai v. S.A. Waheb Co. reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 141 (Tri.-Mumbai) it was held that mere fixation of logo on the goods by supplier of raw materials who does not have even the requisite machines to manufacture the goods, cannot make him manufacturer. In this case also it is the appellant s submission that they do no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X