Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Maharasthra Steels vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 27 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(146)ELT690(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
K.K. Usha, President.
1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the appellant can be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE. for the reason that the raw material, namely, plain galvanized CRC sheets used by them in the process of corrugation bears the brand name of manufacturer of CRC sheets.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice a decision of this Tribunal in Vimal Printery v. CCE, Vndodara - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 980 (Tribunal) wherein the similar issue considered and held in favour of the assessee. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the above decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in 2000 (115) E.L.T. A222 (S.C.). On the other hand, the learned DR relied on a decision of the Tribunal in Priti Electronics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 584 (Tri. - Del.) wherein it has been held that since radio cassette recorders were assembled and housed in imported cabinets bearing foreign brand name, the appellants who engaged in the manufacture of radio cassette recorders were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE.
3. In Vimal Printery the question that arose for consideration was whether assessees were disentitled to benefit of exemption Notification for small-scale industries on the ground that the raw material namely, 'Duplex-boards' supplied by M/s. ITC Ltd. contained their house mark ITC on the inner flap. The assessee had to carry out the process of converting those printed paper into boxes for packing purposes. It was held that since the appellants were not printing the emblem or the printed name of the ITC, themselves that the container was already printed with the name of the company as well as the trade and brand name of the liquor and that ITC was not the trade name and brand name of the liquor which was packed in those paper containers, the assessee will be entitled to the benefit of Notification. Prima facie it can be contended that in Priti Electronics (P) Ltd. a different view was taken. But since the decision in Vinial Printery had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, we are inclined to follow the ratio of the above decision. The decision of the Tribunal in Texind Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 622 (T) was also brought to our notice which is in support of the contention raised by the appellant that the manufacturer cannot be denied the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for the reason that the raw material contained the brand name or trade name of the manufacturer. We, therefore, hold that the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for the reason that the plain galvanized CRC sheets used in the process of corrugation bears the brand name of the manufacturer of the CRC sheets.
4. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.