9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for injection moulding machine which were affixed with brand name of their customers such as Salora. Texla, E.C.I., etc.; that in their classification declaration effective from 1-5-95 they mentioned clearly normal rate of duty as applicable and also mentioned that they are manufacturing branded goods; that in October, 1995, T.V. manufacturers directed them not to put their name/monogram/brand name on the cabinet/other components as branding of the parts was adding to their cost; that accordingly they filed another classification declaration w.e.f. 10-10-95 wherein they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 claiming concessional rate of duty as per slab rate; that the Asstt. Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 65/98, dated 30-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of Paras 1(a) and 1(b) of the notification. Finally, the learned Advocate mentioned that the findings that the moulds were not branded goods is based on presumption since the moulds were also bearing the respective names. 3. On the other hand Shri Ashok Kumar, learned DR, submitted that the moulds for injection moulding machines and waste and scrap were not branded goods and the Appellants could have availed exemption under Notification No. 1/93; that the fact that they had filed classification declaration showing full rate of duty in respect of these two items would amount to opting out of the exemption contained in Notification No. 1/93. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The relevant clause of Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling of the benefit of exemption contained in Paragraph 1 of the notification is not available to the Appellants. They have expressly mentioned that even the moulds were being affixed with the brand name of the customers and no material to counter the said claim has been adduced by the Revenue. Even in their reply to the show cause notice they had clearly mentioned this fact that T.V. manufacturers sometime placed orders for moulds with their name embossed on them. In view of the fact that their finished products were affixed with the brand name which make them ineligible for the benefit of notification it cannot be said that they had opted not to avail the benefit of the notification in terms of the non obstente clause. The Tribunal has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
