9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (12) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
Whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was available to excisable goods affixed with the brand name of another manufacturer before the amendment by Notification No. 223/87 on 22-9-1987. Analysis: The appeal filed by M/s. Mistry Paints (P) Ltd. raised the issue of whether they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for goods affixed with the brand name of another manufacturer before the amendment by Notification No. 223/87. The appellants argued that they were manufacturing goods for Asian Paints India Ltd. and M/s. Goodlass Nerolac, availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Assistant Collector initially dropped the duty demand, but the Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision, stating that affixing another manufacturer's brand name made the goods ineligible for exemption. The appellants contended that the amendment introducing this condition was not applicable retrospectively. They cited previous Tribunal decisions in similar cases and expressed willingness to pay differential duty for goods cleared after the amendment date. The respondent argued that the goods were manufactured on job work basis by affixing the brand name of customers, justifying the denial of duty exemption under Notification No. 175/86. Upon considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal noted that the condition disallowing exemption for goods affixed with another person's brand name was introduced by Notification No. 223/87 on 22-9-1987, without retroactive application. The Tribunal clarified that other factors like the nature of sale were irrelevant to determining the applicability of the amendment. Consequently, the appellants were deemed eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for goods affixed with customers' brand names and cleared before 22-9-1987. However, they were liable to pay duty for goods cleared after the amendment date, a liability accepted by the appellants' counsel. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
