9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, Member (T)]. Revenue is appellant against lower appellate authority s order holding that a loan licencee is also a manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) and is not hit by Explanation IV of Notification 175/86 and such loan licencee, not owning factory shall not be hit by the restrictions imposed by Para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86 subject to fulfilment of other conditions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption Notification 175/86 inasmuch as the said goods carries the brand name of another person that is Medifield Pvt. Ltd. 3. Learned SDR, Shri T. Premkumar submits that it has been held in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Cibatul [1985 (22) E.L.T. 302 (S.C.)] that the actual manufacturer of the goods is the manufacturer and not the person whose brand name is affix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of Indica Laboratories [1990 (50) E.L.T. 210 Gujarat]. These judgments of the Bench were again followed in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Paras Pharmaceuticals [1997 (21) RLT 828 (CEGAT). A new point which appears to have been taken by the learned SDR is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cibatul which indicates that affixation of a brand name of a person d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 175/86 so long as he fulfils the condition of Notification No. 175/86. Those conditions are fulfilled in our view because it is stated on record that the loan licencee in the present case was availing of the benefit of Notification No. 85/85 prior to introduction of Notification No. 175/86 and, therefore, he was entitled to benefit of latter Notification in terms of Para 4 thereof. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
