S.P. PACKAGINGS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common issue involved in both these appeals filed by M/s. S.P. Packagings and M/s. B.R. Oil Mills is whether they were manufacturing excisable goods bearing the Brand name of each other making them ineligible for the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 9/2000 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2000.

(2.) Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that both the Appellants manufacture PET Bottles; that the bottles manufactured by B.R. Oil Mills were inscribed with the words BR -PET, BR PET HAR EXADCP; that similarly bottles manufactured by M/s. S.P. Packagings were inscribed with the words SP -PET, SP PET HAR EXC, and SP PET HAR EXADCPL; that in the month of June, 2000, the dyes of both the Appellants needed to be reconditioned and were sent to M/s. Kuldeep Engineering Works; that after the dyes were repaired, due to oversight, the dyes of B.R. Oil Mills were sent to the factory of M/s. SP Packagings and the dyes of SP Packagings were sent to BR Oil Mills as the dyes of both the applicants were of the same size and shape; that they could not detect the fact of dyes having been exchanged and they started using the same for manufacturing PET bottles; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order has confirmed the demand of duty against both the Appellants on the ground that both the Applicants were using the brand name of each other on the PET bottles and as such the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 9/2000 -C.E. is not available to them. The learned Advocate contended that the mistake had occurred on account of change in the dyes received after being repaired from M/s. Kuldeep Engineering Works; that there was no need for either of the Appellants to get their goods manufactured from each other during the same period; that neither M/s. S.P. Packagings had placed any order on M/s. B.R. Oil Mills to manufacture PET Bottles bearing their brand name nor M/s. B.R. Oil Mills had placed any order on M/s. S.P. Packagings to manufacture the PET Bottles bearing their brand name. He also submitted that the bottles were inscribed with the name of Haryana Excise Department for packing of liquor manufactured by them and such an inscription could not amount to affixing of Brand name. He also relied upon the Board's Circular F. No. 213/28/87 -CX -6, dated 27 -11 -87 wherein it has been clarified that the packaging material bearing the brand name of large manufacturer/traders would not be hit by the mischief of Para 4 of the notification.

(3.) Countering the arguments, Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that if the mistake had occurred on account of getting the wrong dyes from the repairer, the mistake should have been known to the Appellants immediately after they had put the dyes in use; that they have continued to manufacture the goods i.e. PET Bottles for a number of days, probably 20 days; that this fact clearly shows that there was no mistake; that Shri Suresh Chand of Kuldeep Engg. Works, who had repaired the dyes, had denied in his statement dated 21 -11 -2000 to have given dyes one factory to the other or vice versa. She also submitted that the Board's Circular F.No. 213/28/87 -CX -6 dated 27 -11 -87 is not applicable as the brand name on the PET Bottles is not of a manufacturer or trader using these bottles for packing.