9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industries under Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 on the ground that the raw material namely, `Duplex-Boards supplied by M/s. ITC Ltd. contained their house mark ITC on the inner flap? The appellants are manufacturers of printed paper containers falling under Chapter sub-heading 4818.12 of CET from Duplex-Boards falling under Chapter sub-heading 4805.30 of CET supplied by M/s. ITC Ltd. 3. The lower authorities have taken a view that the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of the said Notification as they affixed on the printed packing containers that the trade name [or] the [symbol] of M/s. ITC Ltd. and as M/s. ITC Ltd. are not eligible for grant of the exemption under the said Notification. Therefore they fall within the misc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal s judgment that the facts were identical inasmuch as the appellants therein also received goods for forging which had already been embossed with the trade name Fitwell . It is his contention that the Tribunal after examining in great detail held that as the appellants did not embossed the said trade name, the question of denying the benefit in terms of para 7 of the Notification does not arise. He pointed out that the judgment of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in terms of the report published in 1996 (82) E.L.T. A168 (Court-Room Highlights). The learned Advocate also submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Trimurti Weldmesh Pvt. Ltd. the Tribunal has examined a similar issue and has upheld the contention of the appellants. In the said case also the appellants were not putting the trade name on the goods and they are receiving the goods for processing with the brand also affixed. The Tribunal after examining para 7 of the Notification held that in such a circumstances para 7 of the Notification is not attracted and the benefit cannot be denied. This judgment has since been confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, therefore, the ratio squarely applies. Further, we notice from the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. that the aspect pertaining to the brand name/trade name viz. house mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely, the printed paper sheets is having printed on it, the brand of the goods to be packed in the cartons. In addition to the brand of the goods, they were also printed on the bottom flap the mark of I.T.C. Ltd.. The appellants contention is that they had no facility of affixing the I.T.C. marks on the containers and had not affixed the marks themselves. In the appeal memorandum and otherwise the appellants have not contended that the goods did not carry the brand name/trade name of I.T.C. Ltd., but merely contended that the printed paper sheets received by them were already printed with the brand name/trade name of I.T.C. Ltd. and since it is they who had not affixed it, therefore the goods were not hit by clause 7 of Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
