1996 (4) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (T)]. The issue in the appeal relates to the use of brand name by the appellants in the case of soda bottled by them. 2. The learned Consultant for the appellants has pleaded that the appellants are doing only a job work for M/s. Mc Field Beverages (India) Ltd. who supplied them the bottles bearing their brand name. He has pleaded the use of bottles supplied to the appellants for the bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... E.L.T. 419. 3. The learned JDR for the Department has pleaded that this is a clear case where the branded bottled aerated water came into existence in the hands of the appellants and therefore the benefit of Notification 1/93 has to be denied. 4. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that in the present case the appellants manufacture Soda which is aerated water and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e excluded from the purview of benefit of Notification 175/86 only in the event when the brand name of another person so affixed by the manufacturer. He has pleaded that this later amendment clearly shows that the goods of the type manufactured by the appellants were not covered by the exclusion clause in the Notification 1/93. We observe that the item in question which is being marketed by the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X