1998 (1) TMI 249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny belonging to the Jay Engineering Group, who manufacture ceiling fans with the brand name `Usha'. On 29-3-1988, a show cause notice was issued to the effect that since the covers manufactured by them were with the brand name of a manufacturer who was not entitled to the benefit of the notification, the clearances of such covers should have been made on payment of duty. The differential duty was demanded vide the show cause notice. The Asstt. Collector after hearing the assessees confirmed the demand. His order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) resulting in the present appeal coming up before us. 2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate arguing for the appellants referred to both the lower orders in which the claim was made before the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 1/93 it has been clarified that where goods such as electricity meters which are not meant for sale and which are not embossed to bring out the connection during the course of trade are not hit by the mischief of this notification. It was his claim that the provisions of Notification Nos. 1/93-C.E. and 175/86-C.E. being identical the clarification for the latter notification could apply to the former notification also. He submitted that the Tribunal in the judgment in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Astro Auto Industries reported at 1995 (78) E.L.T. 239 has held that where the clarification was issued by the Board subsequent to the passing of a particular decision, the issue was required to be referred back. It was his submission that on ....