TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (8) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as a small scale manufacturer with the Directorate of Industries and during the period relevant for the purposes of said appeal were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86. 1.3 The process of manufacture as given by the appellant in their memo of appeal is as follows :- (i) The appellant is preparing base plate drawing for D.G. Set at his factory. (ii) It is undertaking fabrication job (outside) of the factory fabricated M.S. Rail as per above mentioned base plate drawing. (iii) The appellant is purchasing coupling from M/s. Pie Engineering Ltd., Calcutta, which are supplied to fabrication for boring and key way cutting for fitment with alternator. (iv) Alternator is purchased fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86 in respect of clearances affected by the appellants during the period 1988-1989 to 1992-1993 on the alleged ground that as the appellants are manufacturing diesel generating sets after assembling the diesel engines and alternators which bore the brand name of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. and M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. respectively, it amounts to manufacture of diesel engines with the brand name of `Kirloskar'. As such the appellants are hit by para 7 of Notification No. 175/86. It was also alleged that the appellants are authorised original equipment assembler for generator set by M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company, the D.G. sets with brand name of `Kirloskar' were not entitled to the benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 (83) E.L.T. 570. Shri Mookerjee also addressed the Bench on the point of limitation and submitted that the entire facts were before the departmental authorities. The classification lists disclosing the entire facts were filed by the appellants and were approved by the proper officer. The adjudicating authority has found against them by observing that they did not declare that they were manufacturing `Kirloskar Diesel Generating Sets'. He submitted that as the appellants were not manufacturing the `Kirloskar' D.G. Sets, there was no need to mention the same in the classification list or on the gate passes. 3. Countering the arguments Shri S.N. Ghosh, ld. JDR submitted that it is not a simple case of use of inputs affixed with a par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. In his rejoinder Shri Mookerjee submits that appointment of the appellant as the original equipment assembler by M/s. Kirloskar is only to ensure proper quality. He submits that the warranty of the D.G. Sets is being given by the appellants who are the manufacturer of the D.G. Sets. The writing of the word `Kirloskar' on the invoices is only to attract customers and will not effect para 7 of Notification so as to oust them from the benefit of this small scale exemption notification. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that to fall within the mischief of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986, the conditions of the same are to be fulfilled. The said para 7 is reproduced below for conveni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the other person will not get hit by para 7 which only envisages affixation of brand name on the goods in respect of which benefit of small scale exemption is being claimed. Reliance placed by the ld. Adv. on the decision of the Madras Bench in the case of Forest Industries (P) Ltd. is well appropriated. The decisions referred to by the ld. JDR are in different facts and circumstances and the ratio of the same is not applicable in the instant case. We take note of another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Trimurti Weldmesh (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. - reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 419, wherein it was held that embossing the brand name at the forging stage, before such forgings were received at the appellants' unit for further working upon wil....