Per Shri S. Kalyanam : E/COD/98/94-B1 :

Condonation of Delay application has been filed by the Department seeking to condone the delay which ensued consequent on the Department filing supplementary appeals in the form of line adopted to suit with the requirement. The delay is condoned.

2. Appeal Nos. E/1550/91-B1 with suppl. E/1480/94-B1, E/1551/91-B1 and E/1481/94-B1 have been filed by the Department against a common order of Central Excise, New Delhi dated 20.11.90. Appeal No. E/1700/91-B1 has been filed by M/s. Allied Industries against the impugned order of Addl. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi dated 18.1.91.

3. Since the above appeals involve identical issue relating to scope and interpretation of 175/86.dated 16.3.86 particularly with reference to use of allege brand name in terms of para 7 which is as under

"The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the j 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 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. Provided further that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or of the State Khadi and Village Industries Board."

All the appeals are consolidated and taken up together and disposes of by common order.

4. For the purpose of convenience, we take up Appeal No. E/1700/91 -B1 relating to appellant Allied Industries Vs. CCE, New Delhi.

5. Shri Nambirajan, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the short issue arising out for determination in the appeal is with reference to the appellant's eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.86 as amended. It was submitted that the appellant is manufacturing of his own End Caps and supplying the same to the customers M/s. Anfilco Ltd. who in turn manufacture filters for automobiles with brand name MICO and supply the same to the Company MICO. It was submitted that so far as the appellant is concerned, the appellant is supplying End caps only to their customers Anfilco by putting the name of Mico on top purely for the purpose of MICO. The appellants are not trading in these goods namely End caps in the market even after manufacturing them for Anfilco, who is using the same End caps and supplying the whole products in their own name to M/s. MICO. Appellants' customers namely Anfilco is not separately marketing Endcaps as such even as spare parts. M/s. Anfilco Ltd. are using these in manufacturing of filters for automobiles and then supply to M/s. MICO. It was alleged that the end caps in question are neither purchased nor sold in the market in the commercial sense and are meant only for the exclusive use in the filter as it is essential as inner component part. Ld. Counsel further urged that it has absolutely no trade connection whatever between appellant on the one hand and MICO on other hand viz-a-viz. and in the entire question therefore the notification in question particularly called reference to the restriction scope on its benefit on grounds of brand name, it is construed and understood in the context of manufacture of End caps by the appellants and supply thereof solely to the customers M/s. Anfilco Ltd.

6. Ld. Counsel submitted that the identical issue came up for consideration in adjudicating proceedings and as against the decision taken by the original adjudicating authorities against the assessee, the appellants assessee preferred an