TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue questioning correctness of the decision rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh [in short 'Commissioner (Appeals)], were dismissed. 2.The background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Respondents manufacture Brass Sanitary Bathroom fittings falling under Sub-heading 8481.80 and 8481.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short 'Tariff Act'). The goods were packed in cardboard boxes on which stylised brand name "ARK" was printed and labels affixed on cardboard boxes also showed the brand name "ARK" in the stylised script; name and address of M/s. Arkson Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh was also printed on the label; in addition "ARK" was put on the Sanitary fittings by pasting stic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son Engg. Co. was exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 208/83 dated 1-8-1983 and no declaration as required to be filed under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Rules'), was filed by it; castings falling under Sub-heading 7325.10 of the Tariff were specified in the Annexure to the Notification. In addition the Additional Commissioner, relying upon decision in the case of Mentha and Allied Products v. Union of India [1995 (77) E.L.T. A133 (S.C.)], concluded that aggregate sale figure of M/s. Arkson Pvt. Ltd. was more than Rs. 2 crores during 1990-91 and 1991-92 and accordingly the benefit of Notification was also not available to it. The Additional Commissioner gave findings to the effect that the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t did not record any finding on the question of extended period of limitation. 6.Stand of the appellant is that the goods were cleared by the respondents who are manufacturers and the brand owner is a trader. Even if the brand owner is a manufacturer he is required to be manufacturer of specified goods. CEGAT erred in holding that if the brand owner is a manufacturer; it is not required to be manufacturer of the specified goods. The small scale industry is not manufacturer of specified goods, and as such is not entitled to any exemption. 7.In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that CEGAT's view is correct. In any event it is pleaded that the extended period of limitation is not applicable and that question has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii)all goods fallings under sub-heading Nos. 2101.10, 2101.20, 3304.00, 3305.90, 3307.00, 4005.00, 4006.10, 4008.21 and 9505.10 and (iv) Sandalwood oil strips of plastic intended for weaving of fabric or sacks, polyurethane foam and articles of polyurethane loam broadcast television receiver sets refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery, and parts and accessories thereof." 9.The said notification was amended by Notification No. 223/87-C.E. dated 22-9-1987. The amendment reads as follows : "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....specified goods, and brand name as used is entitled to exemption contained in the notification, it is really of no consequence whether he is manufacturer of goods. The stand is clearly untenable. The notification is 'goods specific'. What is required is that a person, who may be a manufacturer, must be eligible for exemption under the notification in respect of the specified goods. Any other interpretation would render the purpose for which the notification has been issued redundant. 11.As noted above, the notification is 'goods specific'. The emphasis is on 'specified goods'. That being so, the impugned judgment of the CEGAT is indefensible. 12.Undisputedly, M/s. Arkson Pvt. Ltd. is different from M/s. Arkson Engg. Co. In the present....