Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs Kaygee Foams Pvt. Ltd. on 7 September, 2001
JUDGMENT Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The respondents herein manufacture motor vehicle parts such as two stroke steering wheels for different vehicles, horn cover, horn pads, etc. The Revenue came to the conclusion that these goods have been affixed with the brand name of the buyers namely Mahindra & Mahindra and Premier Automobiles Ltd., and hence alleged that the benefit of SSI exemption under Notifications 175/86-CE dated 01/03/1986 and 1/93 had been wrongly claimed by the respondents. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings holding that although the monogram PAL and M&M were not affixed on the goods by themselves, but the monograms affixed on the horn pads were supplied along with the steering wheels, horn pads and horn covers and therefore it amounted to affixation, but Since the goods were not traded in the market but were OE equipment the exclusion in terms of SSI notification would not be attracted against the respondents. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. There is no dispute that the monograms were not affixed on the goods in question. Therefore the Commissioner's first observation that since the monograms have been invariably supplied with each steering wheel assembly it has to be considered as affixed itself is very doubtful. Further we find that the goods in question are admittedly not traded in the market and this situation has been considered by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Industries v. CCE, Bhubaneswar reported in 2000 (119) ELT 30. The bench has held that where the brand name is affixed on the goods which are not traded in the market the para 7 of the notification 175/86 is not attracted so as to affect the assessees, because, use of brand name must be in the course of trade. This decision has been followed subsequently in the case of S.A. Industries v. CCE, Mumbai 2000 (121) ELT 393 and CCE, Rajkot v. Vitashiv Ceramics Ltd. 2000 (122) ELT 106.
3. Following the ratio of the above decisions we hold that no infirmity arises from the Commissioner's order extending the benefit of SSI exemption, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.