2010 (5) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 003 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 belongs to M/s. United Spirit Ltd., hence not entitled for the benefit of S.S.I.. Notification. 2. Contention of the Appellant is that the Appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. United Spirits Ltd., Bangalore, a manufacturer of packed drinking water with the brand name of 'M/s. McDowell No. 1', which belongs to M/s. United Spirits Ltd. and are paying Royalty. The contention is that M/s. United Spirits Ltd. are not manufacturing packed drinking water, therefore the Appellant is entitled for the benefit of the  Notifications. It is also submitted that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o 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 tank with ozone generator for ozonation. Thereafter, the purified water is filled in pet jars and bottles' through gravity and cleared with the brand name of M/s. McDowell No. 1' which belongs to M/s. United Spirits Ltd., Bangalore. As per the Chapter Note-2 of Chapter-22 of the Central Excise Tariff, the process undertaken by the Appellant in respect of the packed drinking water amounts to manufacture. 4.2 In respect of eligibility of small-scale exemption, the Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. provides that 'brand name' or trade name' means a brand name or a t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 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 Order whereby the benefit of the exemption Notifications was denied. 4.3 In respect of the contention regarding time-bar, we find that the Appellant never informed the Revenue by filing any declaration or any other communication in regard to the activity of manufacturing or clearing the packed drinking water with the brand name of another person. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the Appellant that the demand is time-barred. 5. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in any of the contentions of the Appellant. The Appeal is, therefore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X