Judgment:
1. The appellants were manufacturing Automobile Head Lamps and Accessories, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 77/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983. They were also manufacturing similar goods for M/s. Autolite (India) Ltd. bearing the brand name 'Autopal'. This was in terms of an agreement between the two parties whereby M/s. Autolite were to reimburse the costs and M/s. Anupshikha were to pay some royalty to M/s. Autolite. The show cause notice dated 30-8-1984 was issued claiming that during the period November, 1983 to July, 1984, the benefit of this notification was wrongly claimed insofar as clearances of the goods under the brand name 'Autopal' were concerned. The Additional Collector, after hearing the assessees, passed the impugned order confirming the demand of Rs. 1,34,044.28 resulting in the present appeal coming up before us.
2. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR for the Revenue.
3. We have considered the rival submissions and have also seen the subject notification. The notification exempts first clearances from one or more factories of goods by or on behalf of a manufacture not exceeding Rs. 30 lakh in a financial year. The notification does not qualify in any manner clearances of those goods, which bear the brand name of another manufacturer or trader. Therefore, for the benefit of this notification to be claimed, it was not material whether the goods, so cleared, bore the brand name of the actual manufacturer or of another manufacturer or trader. In the show cause notice, the facts have been narrated and the allegation of non-levy has been made. The show cause notice does not explain how the charges sustain. In his order, the Additional Collector has spoken of the relationship between these two manufacturers. He calls the relationship as "special relationship" in which M/s. Autolite (India) Ltd. were exercising full powers and control. The show cause notice, however, does not allege that for calculating the value of the first clearances, the clearances of both the assessees should be chibbed together. It is nobody's claim that the present appellants were not the manufacturers of the goods. It is also not denied that the goods bore the brand name of some other manufacturer. But in the absence of any prohibition in the notification, value of such clearances cannot be excluded from the ambit of the notification. It is true that the present appellants were manufacturing goods on behalf of somebody else, but the manufacture was still by them. The show cause notice was not issued to the brand name owners and, therefore, the fact that the goods were manufactured on their behalf, is not material for interpreting the benefit of this notification.
4. In view of our finding that the benefit of the notification could not be denied to the present appellants, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct consequential relief to the extent warranted.