9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, dismissed. - E/EDM/511/2005 - A-356/KOL/2010 - Dated:- 25-5-2010 - S/Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President and M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri Tapash Dutta, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Chakraborty, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. The Appellant filed this Appeal against the impugned Order whereby the demand of duty along with interest was confirmed after denying the benefit of small-scale exemption Notification Nos. 8/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 and 8/2003-CE., dated 1-3-2003 and a The benefit of the Notifications was denied on the ground that the Appellant was manufacturing packed drinking water with the brand name of 'M/s. McDowell No. 1' which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r denying the benefit of notification. 4.1 We find that the Contention of the Appellant that mere purification of water does not amount to manufacture has no merit, as the Chapter Note-2 of the Chapter-22 of the Central Excise Tariff provides that in relation to water, processes such as filtration, purification or any other process or any one or more of these processes, labelling or re-labelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to manufacture. In the present case, the drinking water passes through series of processes like sand filters, activated carbon filters, softener etc. and then the same is stored in a SS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification, the contention of the Appellant that M/s. United Spirits Ltd., Bangalore are not manufacturing packed drinking water and as a result, the Appellant is entitled for the benefit of the Notification, has no merit, as the use of brand name of other disentitles the Appellant in regard to the claim of notification. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), held that use of part of a brand name or trade name, so long as it indicates a connection in the course of trade would be sufficient to disentitle the claim under exemption notification. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no infirmity in the impugned O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
