ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. These appeals of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur-I are directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 382 & 381-CE/KNP-I/98, dated 16-11-98 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. The issue involved was the eligibility for small-scale exemption of the castings manufactured by the respondents M/s. Mahavir Iron Foundry. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondents were eligible for exemption under Notification 1/93. He observed as under :-
“5.1 have examined the case carefully. Regarding the seizure of branded C.I. Castings having brand names of other persons, it is seen from the records that the impugned brands are not the brands of the appellants as the contrary has not been proved. In this connection the Board vide its Circular No. 71/71/94, dated 27-10-94 reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. (T-23) in paragraph 7 has clarified that castings having brand name are not sold in the market as castings as such, because it will be of no use to another person. It has been further clarified that when such castings are not traded but only sold to a particular manufacturer for his own use, the embossing of the brand name of the customer on the castings would not amount to using brand name so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 1/93.1 find that the appellants’ case is squarely covered by the above clarification of the Board which is binding on the Central Excise authorities. In view of the above discussions, I hold that the appellants were not liable for payment of duty on clearances of their products as they were exempted under Notification No. 1/93 and the goods were therefore not liable to be seized….”
2. This order has been challenged on the following grounds :-
The Board’s Circular No. 71/71/94-C.E., dated 27-10-94 has been relied upon by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and it is held that such castings are not traded but only sold to a particular manufacturer for his own use, hence embossing of the brand name on the casting would not amount to using brand name so as to deny benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE., dated 28-2-93. This contention is not proper and legal on the following grounds:-
(a) That C.I. castings for Pipes and Fittings are not meant for further manufacture of other goods. Hence, there will not be covered under para 7 of Board's Circular No. 71/71/94-C.E., dated 27-10-94. (b) That no proof has been submitted by the party either before Commissioner (Appeals) or Asstt. Commissioner, Agra regarding non-trading of such goods by the actual purchaser and hence benefit of para 5 and para 6 of above mentioned Board's Circular, dated 27-10-94 is not applicable to these castings. (c) ... 3. Arguing for the respondents, ld. Counsel Shri Rajendra Prasad Pal submits that the grounds of appeal are totally contradictory to facts on record. He refers in particular to para 3 of the order in adjudication No. 230/AC/Adj/97, dated 29-11-97. This para is reproduced below :-
“3. It is a fact that they manufactured castings having the brand name of their customers as per their designed and specifications relating to respective buyer. These castings were being supplied to the customers for further manufacture of diesel engines/machinery. The CBEC vide their Circular No. 71/71 /94-C.E., dated 27-10-94 have clearly ordered that so long as these castings are made to order as per the design and specification of a particular manufacturer and sold to the manufacturer for their own use, the benefit of exemption as contained in Notification 1/93-GE., dated 28-2-93 as amended up to date, will be admissible to such castings and that these castings will not be termed as branded goods. This position has also been clarified vide Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance’s letter F. No. B/40/12/94-TRU, dated 1-9-94 vide Circular No. 52/52/94-CX.”
4. It is clear from the aforesaid para alone that the castings are for further manufacture of diesel engines, machinery, etc., and that these are so used by the persons who ordered them. It is also clear that the brand names on the castings were the names of the purchasers of the castings. Thus, there is no basis to the submission in the grounds of appeal that the findings rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) are without any evidence. Appeals have no merit and are therefore, rejected.