1998 (6) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....same issue is involved 2. Shri G Shiv Das, Learned Advocate submitted that both the appellants manufactured PCB assemblies which are used in the manufacture of push buttons telephones. They obtained bare PCBs and components from several suppliers such as M/s. Priyaraja Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Swede India Teletronics Ltd. (SITL). He submitted that the PCB purchased by them had a monogram/logo of M/s. Swede India Teletronics Ltd. affixed on them. The Department initially issued a show cause notice dated 19-6-1990 for disallowing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as the product cleared by them were affixed with brand name. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 30-7-1990 was issued to the show cause notice in which it was allege....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ixed the brand name of M/s. SITL which is evident from the statement of Shri Raja Mohan Rao. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Trimurti Weldmesh (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (64) E.L.T. 419 in which it was held that paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86 is not attracted, if the brand name is not affixed by the manufacturer but it was already embossed on forging stage before such forgings were received at manufacturers' unit. The Tribunal held that as the appellants did not affix the specified goods with brand name, they cannot be denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as they are not excluded therefrom in terms of clause 7 of the Notification. The appeal filed by the Department against the said decisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stantially complied with the provisions of the proviso to para 7. Merely because procedure set out in the Chapter X is not followed, the duty liability cannot be imposed on them. He placed reliance on the decision in the ease of Gujarat Paints and Allied Products Co. v. CCE, Baroda - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 644 (Tribunal) = 1994 (54) ECR 301 (Tribunal). 4. Shri A.K. Agrawal, Learned SDR reiterated the findings contained in the impugned orders-in-original. 5. After considering the submissions of both the sides, we find substantial substance in the submissions made by the appellants that when the bare assemblies were received by them the brand name/logo of M/s. SITL was already affixed thereon. The affixing of the brand name has not ....