9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Agrawal, Member (T)]. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Mistry Paints (P) Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was available to the excisable goods affixed with brand name of another manufacturer before issue of Notification No. 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 amending Notification No. 175/86. 2. Shri Rajeev Batra, learned Advocate submitted that besides manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector holding that it was clear from para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 that once a manufacturer had affixed brand name of another manufacturer, the benefit of the said notification would not be available; that as the appellants were affixing the brand name of their customers, they were not eligible to avail exemption. The learned Advocate contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned SDR Shri Satnam Singh submitted that the goods were manufactured by the appellants on job work basis by affixing the brand name of their customers and as such the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 175/86 was rightly denied. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 did not contain initially any condition to the ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing guided only by commercial consideration, etc., are relevant only for determination of assessable value and such points are not relevant for determing the applicability of para 7 of the notification in the case. We accordingly hold that the appellants were entitled to the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 175/86 in respect of goods affixed with brand names of their customer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
