9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. This appeal has come up against an Order-in-Original of the Collector Central Excise, who has denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 in respect of Branded goods cleared during the years 1987-88 to 1990-91 (upto 19-7-1990) and demanded differential duty of Rs. 20,75,825.19 on such branded goods removed during the said pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 20,75,825.19 on the denial of the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 on the alleged branded goods, the learned Advocate fairly conceded that the issue of foreign company owned Brand names and their eligibility under SSI exemption Notification is now no longer res integra, having been settled by the CEGAT s Larger Bench decision in the case of Namtech Systems Ors in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Collector has been actually put on the goods since the mahazar drawn on 23-7-1990 (as per the copy in the paper book) records the label affixed on the goods to read as MAINI LICENCE BV . That apparently does not tally with either of the two stylised words as extracted in the para 13 of the agreement by the Collector (supra). (c) We find from the photocopy of the licensee Agreement dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rks were affixed on the product and how they constitute and meet the definition clause of Brand name/Trade name of the exclusion clause of notification. The learned Advocate has submitted that as per the Government of India, Ministry of Industry collaboration agreements prohibits the use of foreign brand names on products for internal sales (para 11 of Annexure to Ministry of Industry No. 3(15)/84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
