- (1.) Civil Appeal No. 3197 of 2000 is by the manufacturer against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, new Delhi ("cegat") dated 24-12-1999 wherein it has been held that the manufacturer is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28-2-1993. Civil Appeal No. 1469 of 2002 is by the Commissioner of Central excise against the judgment dated 5-9-2001 wherein for a subsequent assessment year CEGAT followed the judgment of the Full Bench of the tribunal in the case of Prakash Industries v. CCE and held that the manufacturer (same assessee) is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE, dated 28-2-1993. As parties are same and the point for consideration is the same both the appeals are being dealt with by this common order. Hereinafter parties will be referred to in their capacity in a civil Appeal No. 3197 of 2000.
(2.) The question for consideration, in both these appeals, is whether or not the appellants i. e. M/s Kohinoor Elastics Private Limited are entitled to the benefit of the aforementioned notification. The appellants manufacture elastics as per specific orders of customers, who are manufacturers of undergarments. As per the orders of the customers the appellants affix b brand/trade names belonging to the respective customers, on the elastic manufactured for that customer.
(3.) The appellants claimed exemption of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28-2-1993 on the basis that it is a small-scale industry. Subsequently it was found out that they were using brand/trade names of other parties and thus the benefit of the notification was denied to them. For one assessment year the Tribunal has, on an analysis of the notification, concluded that they are not entitled to the benefit of the notification. However, for another assessment year, following a Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal it has been held that they are entitled to the benefit of the notification.;