Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
G.A. BRAHMA DEVA, J.H. Joglekar, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I -Appellant
Versus
Cannon Electronics Products (P.) Ltd. -Respondent
Final Order No. E/33/98-B1 Appeal No. E/4094/89-B, 33 of 1998, 4094 of 1989
Decided On : 17-12-1997
S. Nunthuk
Per J.H. Joglekar :
The respondents in this case were availing of the benefit of notification no. 175/86. Part of the goods manufactured by them were with the brand name of another person who himself was a manufacturer and was also availing of the benefit of the same notification. The Assistant Collector in his original order held that since the other person was not manufacturing any goods at the material time, he could not be termed as "manufacturer", but was more in the nature of a trader. On this observation, he confirmed the demand. The assessees filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the other assessees were registered with the Central Excise as a manufacturer and that the mere fact that they had not produced any goods during a particular period would not change their status from that of manufacturer to a trader. He set aside the lower order resulting in the present appeal being filed before us.
2. Shri S. Nunthuk, ld. JDR arguing for the Revenue stated that in order to qualify for the term "manufacturer" a person must be engaged in the activity of manufacture. On this ground he defended the Assistant Collector's order.
3. The respondents were not present although a sufficient notice was served upon them.
4. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the arguments made on behalf of the Revenue.
5. We find the logic of the Collector that a manufacturer does not cease to be manufacturer merely because he has not manufactured anything during the particular period, to be unassailable. We are satisfied that the assessees were correctly given the benefit of the notification even in the case of goods not being manufactured by such other manufacturers. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, we dismiss this appeal from the Revenue.
