2003 (9) TMI 251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d as company since 27-3-1980 and are holder of Central Excise Registration for manufacture of various "oil field equipments". One M/s. Varco B. J. Oil Tools BV, owned by M/s. Varco International, U.S.A., (hereinafter referred to as Varco B.J) who are pioneers in the manufacture of oil field equipments in the world, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 6-10-1990 with M/s. SSAE to promote and incorporate a joint venture company in the name and style of M/s. Varco Sara India Pvt. Ltd. for the manufacture of equipments used in oil drilling viz. elevators, manual tongs, slips and their spares classified under Heading No. 84.77 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. M/s. Varco Sara are registered with Central Excise Range-II, Dehradun u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve billed them for royalty. 7.The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the facts came to the conclusion that the inscription "Varco Sara (I) Pvt. Ltd" does not dis-entitle them for the benefit of small scale exemption contained in Notification No. 1/93-CE. After relying on the several decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal as well as those of High Court, the respondents' appeal was allowed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue challenges the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is stated that affixation of the name "Varco Sara (I) Pvt. Ltd" through metal punching, was ignored by Commissioner (Appeals). The Explanation X defining the scope of brand name as appearing in the Notification, is an integral part of Notific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst M/s. SSAE, apart from confirming the same duty against the respondents, before the Commissioner (Appeals), the demand raised against M/s. SASE got quashed. There is no challenge in the instant appeal of the revenue to the effect that, Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have confirmed the demand against M/s. SSAE as against the demand confirmed against the respondents. In fact, the prayer is to confirm liability against the respondents. 12.It must be remembered that the liability to pay duty is on the manufacturer. While the SCN proposed to demand duty from two different noticees, it was incumbent on the adjudicating authority to determine as to who was liable to pay the duty. The adjudicating authority ended up in confirming duty aga....