V. Rajamanickam, Member (T)

1. The above Appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, with reference to the exemption availed under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 01-03-1986 by manufacturers of T.V. Cabinets. The issue involved in all the above 30 Appeals being identical, they have been taken up for decision for issue of a common order.

2. Arguing the case for the Appellant, Shri M.S. Arora, Ld. Junior Departmental Representative drew attention to the Notification No. 175/86-C.E:, dated 01-03-1986 as amended by Notification No. 223/87-C.E., dated 22-09-1987, Explanation-VIII, and stated that the brand name of the T.V. Manufacturers, M/s. Konark was affixed to the T.V. Cabinets manufactured by the Respondents and these Cabinets were meant for the T.V. Sets having the brand name "Konark" Rohini Delux, and, therefore, came within the ambit of the definition under Explanation-VIII and were not eligible for the exemption accorded to small-scale units. The order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that the trade name marked on the Cabinet established a connection in course of wholesale trade, between the person using the trade names and the T.V. Sets as such, and not parts (T.V. Cabinets) was incorrect and the T.V. Cabinets falling under Chapter Heading 85.29 is specified goods for the purpose of the Notification and the manufacturers of the specified goods i.e. T.V. Cabinets affixed the brand names of the brand name/trade name of M/s. Konark T.V. Ltd., Bhubaneswar. The manufacturers of the T.V. Cabinets are not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 01-03-1986.

The Ld. JDR cited the case law reported in MANU/TN/0432/1990 : 1990 (49) ELT 33 (Mad.) - BHEL Ancillary Association v. Collector of Central Excise, Para 5 6 on the scope of the term "brand name".

(ii) 1990 (30) ECR 476 (CEGAT-SRB) - Precise Electronics v. CCE, Madras;

(iii) MANU/DE/0445/1990 : 1990 (49) ELT 39 (Delhi) - Goodyear India Ltd. v. UOI - in respect of the validity of Board's directions and the quasi-judicial authorities cannot be controlled by the directives issued by the Board.

3. The Ld. Consultant/Advocate for the Respondents, S/Shri B. Dass and K.B. Dass, however, reiterated the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and relied on the clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs, published in 1987 (32) T-23. Shri B. Dass, Ld. Consultant stressed that the brand name affixed was on the T.V. Cabinet and not on the T.V. Set and he relied on the same decision of the Madras High Court, MANU/TN/0432/1990 : 1990 (49) ELT 33 (Mad.) -BHEL Ancillary Association v. CCE.

4. The arguments put forth have been considered. The Notification No. 223/87-C.E., dated 22-09-1987 amending Notification No. 175/86 dated 01-03-1986 has the following content :-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 175/86-Central Excises, dated the 1st March 1986, namely :-

In the said notification -

(i) after paragraph 6, the following paragraph shall be inserted, namely :-

7. The 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 (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this notification :

Provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable in respect of the specified goods cleared for home consumption before the 1st day of October, 1987.'

(ii) After Explanation VII, the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely :-

'Explanation-VII - 'Brand name' or 'trade name' shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether or not, that is to say a name or mark, such as symbol,