- (1.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the 'Tribunal') holding that the respondent which is a small scale industrial unit (in short the 'SSI Unit') is eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondents are manufacturers of aerated water. They are SSI units. They manufactured aerated water and cleared the same after affixing the brand name "Citra" during the period 1993-94. The brand name belonged to another person namely M/s Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd. (in short 'M/s Limca') which was eligible for exemption (as SSI unit) under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993. These facts are not in dispute. The Department by show cause notice (in short 'SCN') proposed to recover Central Excise Duty on the clearances of the aforesaid branded goods effected by the appellants in 1993-94, alleging that the exemption under the Notification was not available to such goods inasmuch as identical goods were not manufactured by the brand name owners. The party contested the notice. The dispute was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who accepted the assessees' defence and dropped the proceedings. The defence was that it was sufficient for purposes of para 4 of Notification No.1/93 that the brand name owner should also be eligible for exemption under the Notification and it was not necessary that they should actually manufacture identical goods and market the same affixed with the brand name. This contention was accepted by the Asst. Commissioner. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was reviewed and accordingly, an appeal was preferred by the Department to the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority allowed the Department's appeal. Assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. As noted above, Tribunal allowed the appeals.
(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the real purpose of paragraph 4 of the Notification has been lost sight of.;