ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The respondents are job workers for M/s. Roots Auto Products Ltd., (RAPL in short). During the material period, they manufactured goods (Horn Controllers) for RAPL out of raw materials supplied by the latter. They supplied the goods to RAPL after affixing with brand name “Root Auto'” which belonged to RAPL. On such clearance, duty was paid on material cost job charges. The department took the view that the assessable value should have been loaded with royalty for brand name at the rate of Rs. 11/- per piece. This was the rate at which M/s. RAPL had permitted certain other companies to use the brand name. The proposal for enhancement of value was resisted by the respondents. The original authority rejected their objections and included royalty charge at the rate of Rs. 1l/- per piece in the assessable value of the Horn Controllers cleared by the respondents to RAPL. The assessee’s appeal against the decision of the original authority was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the Revenue.
2. Ld. SDR reiterates the grounds of the appeal Ld. Counsel for the respondents argues in justification of the impugned order.
3. After examining the submissions made by both sides, we find that the respondents had not paid any consideration for the brand name to RPAL. They were just affixing the brandname on the goods at the brandname owner’s instance and clearing the goods to the latter. We do not see any reason why any amount relatable to the brand name should be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the job worker. The original authority has observed that brandname had a value, which was equivalent to the royalty which other companies were paying to RAPL. It has held this value to be includible in the assessable value of the subject goods. But that authority appears to have overlooked the fact that any value of the brandname was a value in the hands of the brandname owner only and not in the hands of their job worker who did not pay anything of such value to the brand name owner. The view taken by the original authority has rightly been overruled in the impugned order by ld. Commissioner (Appeals). We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, rejected.