9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. This is an application for Rectification of Mistake in Final Order No. 1210/98-C, dated 27-11-98. 2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, relying upon the decision in the case of Taj Serpent Eggs v. CCE, 1996 (85) E.L.T. 78, holding that if the brand name is used on diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot available even if the manufacturer affixes the brand name on a product different from the product of the brand name owner and as such there is a mistake apparent on the record of the case as benefit of the exemption has been extended on the reasoning that the product manufactured by the respondent was different from the products manufactured by the brand name owner. 3. Countering the argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des. We find that Madras High Court in Bell Products case, supra, has clearly held that Notification No. 175/86 did not stipulate that brand name or trade name should be affixed in respect of similar or identical goods. To this extent there was a mistake in the final order as it was held, relying upon Taj Fire Works Industries v. CCE, 1995 (76) E.L.T. 180 that if the brand name is used on differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had become the owner of the brand name themselves and affixing the brand name belonging to them was not covered by the mischief of Para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86. Accordingly, the benefit of notification was available to the respondents. In view of this, while we allow the application for rectification of mistake, the appeal filed by the Revenue remains rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
