1997 (10) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

CEGAT Tribunal Rules No Benefit under Notification for Unbranded Tools

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras, in a dispute over the interpretation of Notification No. 175/86, ruled that the respondent, who did not affix any ... SSI Exemption - Brand name Issues:- Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 regarding brand name on specified goods- Whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the notification- Affixing of brand name on tools and pouches by the manufacturer- Applicability of para 7 of the notification in the caseAnalysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved a dispute over the interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 concerning the brand name on specified goods. The department contended that the respondent was using the brand name of a company not entitled to the notification's benefit. The respondent argued that they did not affix any brand name on the tools they manufactured, and the brand names on the plastic pouches were from the supplier. The Additional Collector noted that the tools did not bear a brand name, only the pouches did. He concluded that the respondent did not fall under the notification's scope as the tools themselves were not branded goods.The department raised the issue that the brand name on the plastic pouches indicated a connection between the tools and another company, making them branded goods. They argued that para 7 of the notification should be applied considering the brand name on the container. However, the respondent maintained that they did not affix any brand name on the tools and that the pouches were purchased externally with pre-printed brand names. The Tribunal observed that the respondent did not affix any brand name on either the tools or the pouches, as the names were printed by the external manufacturer. Consequently, they concluded that the respondent did not fall within the scope of clause 7 of the notification.In the final analysis, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. They emphasized that the plain language of the notification required the affixation of a brand name on the goods to disentitle the appellant from the notification's benefit. Since the respondent did not affix any brand name on the tools or pouches, clause 7 of the notification was deemed inapplicable in this case.