1999 (3) TMI 587

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../86. 2. The appellants have submitted in the appeal as well as during the hearing that the classification order has been passed without authority and the denial of small-scale exemption is totally erroneous. 3. With regard to classification, the appellants have submitted that the classification of these goods had been approved under a proper classification list by the competent authority for passing classification orders, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The matter was also under reconsideration by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under proceedings initiated through issue of a show cause notice. The appellants had also filed their reply to the show cause notice and during the pendency of these pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. They have submitted that the goods will become ineligible only if it attracted undermentioned provision of Notification No. 175/86, which stipulates that the exemption shall not apply only if a manufacturer "affixes the specified goods with the brand name or trade name of another person." "The exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this Notification." 7. Heard Shri A.K. Agrawal, SDR, for the Revenue. He reiterated the findings in the adjudication order that it is an admitted fact that the noticee had affixed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntly maintaining before all authorities that these names are used by the various manufacturers producing the same goods under the technology obtained from Water Development Society and that these names were not affixed on the goods themselves but were only entered on the invoices. We find that the adjudication order does not give a finding on this contention of the appellants. The order only says that "the noticee's contention that they do not affix the brand name "Panthor" and "Bison" in their product, is not tenable." The reason for reaching this finding is  that the appellants were manufacturing the goods under agreement with M/s. Water Development Society and the agreement provided for the use of the brand name. This line of reason....