TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (2) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Respondent. [Order]. - When the matter was called Shri K.L. Mutreja, Proprietor of the appellant's firm appeared in person. According to him the appellants are manufacturers of welding electrical transformers and air compressors and they were a small scale unit. Their production during the year 1988-89 was much below Rs. 15 lakhs which was the exemption limit for purposes of Noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of brand name by purchaser had nothing to do with their production and they had not affixed the said brand names by themselves. They contended that paragraph 7 of the Notification is not applicable to their case and the Collector has wrongly applied the said provisions in their case for denying them the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86. 2. The ld. DR drew attention to the paragra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e eligible for the exemption under the said Notification, the provisions of para 7 were not applicable in their case. 3. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellants are a SSI unit. Notification No. 175/86 at the relevant time allowed an exemption upto Rs. 15 lakhs for SSI units manufacturing specified goods. There is nothing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants and there was no arrangements by which the appellants themselves were affixing the brand names on the goods before it was sold. I find force in this contention. The impugned order does not refer to any documents or other evidence to show that there was any arrangements by which the appellants have themselves affixed the brand name on the goods before they were sent to the purchasers. ....