JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. The duty has been demanded from the applicant on three grounds. The first is on the couplings that it manufactured as a job worker in terms of the procedure under Rule 57F (4). The Commissioner finds these couplings bore their brand name and therefore demanded duty. The question of the brand name would be relevant in a situation where exemption or liability to duty requires or does not require the present of such a brand name. The exemption provided to goods, cleared in terms of Rule 57F (4) contained in notification 214/86 is not included in the case of goods bearing brand name.
2. Duty has been demanded on such items as columns, beams etc of steel that the applicant manufactured and used to fabricate its factory sheds. The Commissioner has failed to consider the contention that was raised before her that these goods carries nil rate of duty and are classifiable under Heading 73.08 of the tariff.
3. The third demand is on the ground that the applicant cleared to the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd goods bore its brand name and consequently notification 16/97 would not apply.
4. The brand name that the Commissioner finds which was put on these goods are the letters “API” represent American Petroleum Institute, and their presence indicated conformity with the standards of quality prescribed by that organisation, and that therefore these letters do not meet the brand name appears to us to be acceptable. The presence of the applicant’s own brand name on the couplings would not prima facie disqualify from the benefit of the exemption; relevant clause in that exemption refers to the brand name of another persons.
5. Since the issue seems clear and have been argued at length, we would have normally taken up the appeal for disposal. We would, however, like to give the departmental representative an opportunity to take instructions. We therefore waive deposit of the duty demanded of Rs. 27.03 lakhs and penalty totalling Rs. 37.03 lakhs on the manufacturer and penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakh on R.K. Gupta, authorised signatory, and stay their recovery.
6. Appeals to come up for hearing on 7.11.2001.