Judgment:
1. The appellant manufactured medicines. The classification list filed by him was approved by the Assistant Collector. Later on, an application was moved before the Collector (Appeals) in terms of Section 35E(4) claiming that certain medicaments, shown in the classification list, were being manufactured on behalf of the two loan licensees, who were not holders of SSI Certificates. On this ground, it was claimed that for the clearances of these medicaments, duty would be leviable. The applicant claimed for modification of the classification list. The Collector in the impugned order held that in terms of para 4 of the notification, the benefit was not available for these clearances. He, further, held that even if the goods manufactured on behalf of the loan licensees, were treated as goods manufactured by the actual manufacturer, the benefit would not be available since the goods were affixed with the brand name of the loan licensees, who were not eligible for the benefit of the notification.
2. In the appeal memorandum, citing the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indica Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 210 (Guj.), the claim is made that the benefit is available. However, nothing has been said about the requirement of the brand name.
3. The appellant requested disposal on the basis of written submissions, which we proceed to do after having heard Shri A.K. Madan, ld. SDR.4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and also the language of the Notification No. 175/86. The Collector, in his observation, held that since the two loan licensees did not hold any SSI Certificate, the goods manufactured and cleared .on their behalf could not be covered under the benefit of this notification. We do not find any justification in this interpretation. It is a settled law that the job worker continues to be termed as the manufacturer in terms of the Central Excise Act, even if the goods are manufactured on behalf of another person. This notification does not limit the benefit thereof depending upon the corporate or industrial status of the principal manufacturer. If that would have been the intention, then the notification would become entirely unworkable. However, the notification does deny the benefit where the principal manufacturer's brand name is affixed to the goods and where the principal manufacturer is not falling within the parameters of SSI licensee. The Collector has used the following wording in this respect: "Even if the goods manufactured on behalf of loan licensees are treated as goods manufactured by the actual manufacturer, the benefit of exemption notification would not still be available in this case since the goods which are P & P medicines have been affixed with the brand name of the loan licencees, who are not eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification 176/86".
5. We have seen the terms of reference to the Collector in the form of application made by the Assistant Collector in Form A2. In the application, this ground has not been raised at all. Therefore, although the assessee has not made a grievance on this ground, we observe that the Collector in his discussion has clearly travelled beyond the scope of the application before him. Therefore, even if his logic is correct, his order does not sustain. The order is, accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed.