9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. The respondent to this appeal A.Z. Electronics and Electronic Entities, notice issued to them proposed denial of the benefit of Notification 175/86 which each of them availed of on the ground that there was "mutuality of interest" between the two firms. The factors relied upon in support of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the real manufacturer. Notice itself was issued to both persons and duty is demanded from each of them by denying the benefit of notification. The notice also refers to an existence of collusive arrangement between them. All these do not suggest a case for denying benefit of notification on the ground that one was a non-existent entity, the manufacturer was only one of these two, in that situat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not manufacture the battery but only arranged to supply to the buyers of the manufacturers of such batteries. This is challenged in the appeal on the ground that the battery is an integral part; reliance is based upon the decision of the Tribunal in Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, 1994 (71) E.L.T. 508. 4. We do not find it possible to see how the fact that batt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not even reach the hands of the manufacturer of the UPS, as is contended before us. The correct position in that case would be that the respondent manufactured incomplete UPS and cleared it and arranged to supply, as a trading activity the battery. The decision of the Tribunal is overwhelming in the respondent's favour. The decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Coimbatore v. Jeetex Engineering Ltd., 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
