9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. This stay application has been filed with reference to the order-in-origin No. 75/93 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. 2. The applicants manufactured Aerated [waters] under the brand name of Citra . The Revenue contended that the Citra brand name owned by M/s. Limca Falvours Fragrances Ltd. and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Company v. Union of India - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 404, Precise Electronics v. Collector of Central Excise - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 69, Khanna Industries v. Collector of Central Excise - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 109 and Intercity Cable System (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 445. 4. Arguing for the Revenue, the Learned DR submits that M/s. Limca Flavour Fragrance Ltd. did not manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redeposit and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 7. What was relevant here was to examine whether in terms of para 4 of the Notification No. 1/93, the brand name affixed on the specified goods was of another person who was not eligible for grant of exemption under this Notification. In arriving at the admissibility or otherwise of exemption Notification what is relevant is not particular go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clearly on the Revenue. We are therefore satisfied that the matter would have to go back by way of remand for determining whether, in fact, M/s. Limca Flavour Fragrance Ltd. where eligible or not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for considering the liability or otherwise of the appellants to pay duty. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
