Per S.S. Sekhon : The appellants are inter-alia engaged in the activity of supplying high-pressure hoses without end fittings and high-pressure hoses with end fittings. The other appellant is Director of the company. During the relevant period, they availed benefit of Notfn. No. 175/86 and 1/93 in respect of the first clearances worth Rs. 75 lakhs. After crossing the limit of Rs. 75 lakhs, the appellants cleared the goods on payment of full duty.

2. (a) The hoses purchased from various sources in India and abroad come in running length. They are cut to the required length. The outer rubber cover of the cut hose is removed, by an operation called skiving. The end fitting of metal, is then inserted inside the hose and then pressed using a machine which enables the end fittings to be permanently attached to the hose.

(b) A substantial part of the hose assembly is cleared by the appellants to the original equipment manufacturers like Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., MICO, M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. These manufacturers manufacture items like Earth Moving equipment, Hydraulic float power system etc. the small portion of the hose assembly, is cleared to other customers, which are used as parts of equipments.

(c) The hose, as procured, in running length has the brand name or logo of the supplier. For instance the goods imported by the appellant from M/s. Dunlop Hydraulic Hose Ltd. have the logo of the said company on the rubber hose.

(d) The appellants have been selling the hose assembly under the brand name of Uniflex. The appellants were pasting a sticker showing the brand name Uniflex on all the hose assemblies. The sticker also was bearing the words "Licence: Dunlop Hiflex" with a logo.

3. (a) They were issued with show cause notices proposing to demand differential duty by denying the exemption, on the ground that the appellants were using the brand name of a foreign company.

(b) After the appellants replied to the show cause notices, order-in-original dtd. 20.1.97 was passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand of duty and imposing penalty in respect of the period April 1991 to March 1996. Similarly, in respect of the period 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise passed Order-in-Original dtd. 23.3.1998. On filing appeal against the said Order-in-Original, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an Order-in-Appeal dtd. 04.12.2000.

(c) They challenged the Order-in-Original as well as the Order-in-appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, vide Final Order Nos. 890 & 891/2001 dtd. 10.5.2001 and Final Order No. 928/2001 dtd. 16.5.2001 remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority, for fresh adjudication with a specific direction to give a clear finding on the factual position, particularly as to whether the Department wants to treat the goods as one and the same or different. The relevant portion of the Order Nos. 890 & 891/2001 dtd. 10.5.2001 is as follows:-

"...He said that the important point to be considered in this case is whether the product manufactured by the appellants are different from the rubber hose by a foreign supplier or not. In this connection, he drew our attention to the relevant portion of the impugned order in Para 20:

"In the instant case 'Rubber Hose and Hose Assembly' are the goods with same brand name of foreign company and the assessee respectively. 'Rubber Hose' and 'Hose Assembly' are classified under Chapter SH 4009.92 treating them as 'tubing'. Even classification of Hose Assembly under said Tariff Headings is on the ground that the same retains the essential characteristics of 'tubing' (Hose). Hence both the above said goods are to be treated on par under the CETA, 1985. In view of this, it cannot be held that 'Rubber Hose' and 'Hose Assembly' are differed goods but belong to same class of goods. Accordingly, the said case laws are not relevant to the assessee's case."

He contended that if the Department is of the view that the goods cleared by the appellants and the goods suppli