Brand-name treatment under excise exemption led to remand because conflicting quasi-judicial views required reconsideration.

Eligibility to Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for aluminium housings and covers bearing another entity's brand name depended on whether such goods fell within the mischief of para 7 read with Explanation VIII. The record disclosed conflicting quasi-judicial views on the same issue within the same Collectorate, so consistency in adjudication required reconsideration. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on eligibility and brand-name treatment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter concerning eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for aluminium housings and covers bearing another's brand name required interference and remand in view of conflicting views taken by quasi-judicial authorities on an identical issue.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether goods bearing the brand name of another entity were to be treated as branded goods within the mischief of para 7 read with Explanation VIII of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The record showed that co-ordinate authorities had taken different views on an identical issue within the same Collectorate. Since the lower authorities had reached inconsistent conclusions on the same legal question, the matter required reconsideration to maintain consistency in adjudication.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the issue was remanded for fresh decision.

---