Full Judgment
2. In this case, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of "M.S. Boxes & Covers for Chokes". The respondents are manufacturing M.S. Boxes and Covers for Chokes affixing the brand name of the Bajaj and Crompton. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order after relying upon the Trade Notice Nos. 83/87 and 85/87, dated 9-11-1987 and 20-11-1987 of Bombay Collectorate held that the respondents are only manufacturing M.S. Boxes and Covers for Chokes though affixed with brand name are not hit by the mischief of para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986.
3. Heard Shri D.S. Negi, SDR on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocate on behalf of the respondents.
4. Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that the Trade Notice No.83/87, dated 9-11-1987 and 85/87, dated 20-11-1987 of Bombay Collectorate are not applicable in the present case of the respondents as these trade notices do not cover M.S. Boxes and Covers for Chokes and respondents are not entitled for benefit of Notification No.175/86-C.E. "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.
Provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods which are component parts of any machinery or equipment of appliances and cleared from a factory for use as original equipment in the manufacturer of the said machinery of equipment or appliances and the procedure set out in Chapter X of the said rules is followed." 6. Trade Notice Nos. 83/87 and 85/87, dated 9-11-1987 and 20-11-1987 is reproduced below: "It has been clarified by the Board that name/logo printed on the material labels etc. is a brand name/trade name in respect of goods on which such labels are to be affixed, because such name/logo indicates a connection in the course of trade between the goods on which such labels are affixed and the brand name owner. Names printed on such metal are not brand name by themselves and as long as these metal labels are not affixed on the goods in the trade of which the name/logo printed on such metal labels etc. serves as brand name (within the definition of Explanation VII), they are not hit by the mischief of the amending Notification. Therefore, SSI units manufacturing labels/Collapsible tubes/crown corks/PP caps which bear the name/logo of brand name owner would continue to enjoy the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. subject to satisfying other conditions of the Notification." 7. In the present case admittedly the respondents are not manufacturing chokes, they are only manufacturing M.S. Boxes and Covers for Chokes and they supply these Covers and Boxes to the manufacturer of Chokes.
The Trade Notice provides that SSI unit manufacturing labels/collapsible tubes/crown corks/PP caps which bear the name/logo of brand name of owner are entitled for the benefit of Notification No.175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986. When the collapsible tubes with brand name are entitled for the benefit of the notification, this benefit cannot be denied to the respondents as they are manufacturing only M.S. Boxes and Covers for the Chokes and not the complete chokes. Further the respondents are supplying these covers to the manufacturers of chokes.
It is not the case of Revenue that the manufacturers of chokes are not entitled for the benefit of the Notification.
8. In view of the fact that the respondents are only producing M.S.Boxes and Covers for Chokes and not the complete chokes, therefore, in view of the above mentioned Trade Notices, they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986 as held by the Collector (Appeals), C. Ex., Bombay in the impugned order. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.