9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Duty of Rs. 46.304.13 (basic) and Rs. 2,315.20 has been confirmed against the appellants on the ground that they were not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption Notification No. 175/86 as the leather footwears manufactured by them were affixed with the brand name 'Charmaja' owned by West Bengal State Leather Industries Development Corpn. Ltd., who wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ypes of footwears. The appellants were to use his own machines, materials and labours. Shri Lahiri is not disputing that the appellants have to be treated as the manufacturer in view of the clear position of law and in terms of the clauses of the said agreement. However, he draws our attention to some other clauses in support of his submissions that the appellants were only manufacturing the shoe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shoe uppers or the leather shoes without affixing the brand name of the corpn. and the same would be done by the corpn. themselves. On the contrary it is seen from clause 10 of the agreement that the appellants were to raise bills for finished footwears after delivery to the points to be intimated by the said corpn. and the said bills would be paid after submission of the same to the corpn. From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts' stand that the brand name was not being affixed by them. Similarly we do not find any merits in the appellants' contention that as the premises from where the footwears have been recovered was a part of the total premises of the corpn., it should be considered as if the goods were not found in the area which was in exclusive possession of the appellants inasmuch as the recovery/seizure memo c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
