Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Amisha Engg. Company - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/40237
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided OnSep-13-2005
JudgeA Wadhwa, A M Moheb
AppellantCommissioner of C. Ex.
RespondentAmisha Engg. Company
Excerpt:
2. the commissioner held that the otters 'nnt inscribed on "steel eye" and "steel jaw" of the shuttles manufactured by the respondents is not a brand name belonging to another person who is not eligible for ssi exemption under notification no. 1/93-c.e. it was his contention that 'eye' and 'jaw' were purchased by the respondent from one m/s. new nirmal industries and with the letters 'nni' inscribed on them and were fitted into the 'shuttles' manufactured by the respondent. this is an admitted fact.3. the revenues' contention that the respondent was manufacturing goods with a brand name belonging to another person who is not eligible for ssi exemption and therefore was not entitled to ssi exemption himself is devoid of any evidence. the letters found on the 'eye' and 'jaw' of the shuttle did denote that the said two parts of the shuttle were manufactured by someone in the market. the fact that the respondent used those parts in the manufacture-of shuttle does not mean that he is using the brand name belonging to another person. it is common knowledge that manufacturers procure parts with brand names and fit them into their products and clear them under their own name.
Judgment:
2. The Commissioner held that the otters 'NNT inscribed on "Steel Eye" and "Steel Jaw" of the shuttles manufactured by the respondents is not a brand name belonging to another person who is not eligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. It was his contention that 'eye' and 'jaw' were purchased by the respondent from one M/s. New Nirmal Industries and with the letters 'NNI' inscribed on them and were fitted into the 'shuttles' manufactured by the respondent. This is an admitted fact.

3. The Revenues' contention that the respondent was manufacturing goods with a brand name belonging to another person who is not eligible for SSI exemption and therefore was not entitled to SSI exemption himself is devoid of any evidence. The letters found on the 'eye' and 'jaw' of the shuttle did denote that the said two parts of the shuttle were manufactured by someone in the market. The fact that the respondent used those parts in the manufacture-of shuttle does not mean that he is using the brand name belonging to another person. It is common knowledge that manufacturers procure parts with brand names and fit them into their products and clear them under their own name.