Judgment

( 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.

( 4 ) THE relevant portion of the notification reads as follows:

"4. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person: provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods which are component parts of any machinery or equipment or appliances and cleared from a factory for use as original equipment in the manufacture of the said machinery or equipment or appliances and the procedure set out in Chapter X of the said Rules is followed: explanation IX.-brand name or trade name shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark [code number, design number, drawing number, symbol monogram, label], signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. "

( 5 ) CLAUSE 4 of the notification is unambiguous and clear. It specifically states that the exemption contained in the notification shall not apply to specific goods which bear a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person. It is settled law that to claim exemption under a notification one must strictly comply with the terms of the notification. It is not permissible to imply words into the notification which the legislature has purposely not used. The framers were aware that use of a brand/trade name is generally to show to a consumer a connection between the goods and a person. The framers were aware that goods may be manufactured on order for captive consumption by that customer and bear the brand/trade name of that customer. The framers were aware that such goods may not reach the market in the form in which they were supplied to the customer. The framers were aware that the customer may merel