Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)

1. The eligibility of motor vehicle parts falling under Heading 8708.00 of CETA 1985 manufactured by the appellants who are a registered small scale industry and cleared during the period from November 1988 to May 1991 (E/4013/92-B1) and June to Sept. 1991 (E/2086/92-B1) to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 as amended by Notification No. 223/87 dated 22-9-1987 arises for determination in both these appeals which are being disposed of by this common order. The benefit has been denied in terms of the exclusion clause contained in para 7 of the notification on the ground that the goods were affixed with name "FITWELL" which is the brand name of a trader who is not eligible for grant of exemption under the said notification. There is no dispute that the brand name/trade name was already embossed at the forging stage before such forgings were received at the appellants' unit and there is also no dispute that the appellants were not affixing any brand name/trade name. The adjudicating authority came to the finding that the appellants intended to manufacture the parts embossed with the said trade name and that is the reason why they got that name embossed at the forging stage and it was immaterial whether they affix the trade name themselves or got it affixed by others as the result is the same i.e. the goods are seized from the factory of the appellants with the trade name embossed thereon. He, therefore, held that the goods in question were covered by the embargo on exemption contained in para 7 of the Notification 175/86. The lower appellate authority has given a categorical finding that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants are getting the goods embossed with the trade name 'Fitwell' at the forging stage and they themselves are not affixing this brand name on the goods. However, the Collector (Appeals) has relied on the "Mischief Rule" to deny the benefit of the Notification, holding as follows :

Para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86 says that exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption of this notification. No doubt the language used in para 7 of the said Notification specifically uses the expression "where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name ...". The normal rule of interpretation requires that a statutory provision should be given a meaning as is conveyed by a plain reading of the words used therein. However, there is an equally important rule of interpretation which is called the Mischief Rule. It is to be kept in view at this juncture that the Notification No. 175/86 dt. 1-3-1986 did not originally have a provision like para 7. It was later added under Notification No. 223/87 dt. 22-9-1987. Therefore, it was a conscious addition by the legislature and obviously it was incorporated with some objective in view. The nature of the provision added makes it clear that the objective was to take care of any type of abuse of this Notification benefit by way of any person not eligible for grant of exemption under this Notification getting his branded goods manufactured by an SSI Unit and thereby getting the benefit of this exemption in a roundabout manner. In other words, this was the mischief which was not taken care of at the time of drafting this Notification in the initial stage and thus paragraph 7 was later introduced to suppress this mischief. Therefore, the scope and parameter of para 7 of this Notification have to be assessed and examined in the light of the above background and in terms of the Mischief Rule of Interpretation. I find that on page 137 of the Book "Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes-12th Edition by P. St. J. Langan it has been inter alia reported in the context of interpretation to prevent