Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (1) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the appellants carry on the business of printing and decorating on glazed tiles; that they do not manufacture glazed tiles which are purchased by them from other manufacturers or from the market; that they merely carry an activity of printing and decorating the tiles as per specification/design approved by their customers; that their products are customer s specific inasmuch as the customers place an order on them of the choice of KERAMOS design acceptable to them. He mentioned that the process of manufacture in brief is that the duty paid plain ceramic tiles are selected as per the design requirement, plain tiles are cut to required size, designs are made in various sizes and colours, the design and colour separation are made by artist .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of Cochin Soft Drinks Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 275 (Tribunal). 3. The learned Sr. Advocate submitted that the customers of the appellants do not place orders on them for supply of tiles manufactured by NITCO, or SOMANI, or ORIENT, etc., that the customers are neither interested in knowing the basic tiles manufacturer s name nor do they specify anything in their purchase order; that the customers approach them for buying KERAMOS tiles irrespective of the original manufacturers; that they buy glazed tiles as raw material for manufacturing printed decorative tiles; that in the operation undertaken by them the portion of the tile on which name of the original manufacturer is mentioned may be cut and removed; that they .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ared under the brand name of other manufacturers; that a reading of his statement would clearly show that the tiles purchased by them already bear the brand name pre-cast on them and they were not clearing the tiles by affixing the brand name of other person; that the decision in the case of Cochin Soft Drinks is not applicable as they are not job workers for the manufacturers of tiles like, Somani, Nitco, Orient, etc., whereas in Cochin Soft Drink case the appellants were job workers manufacturing and filling soda in the bottles supplied by the customers which had brand name of the customer. He also relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Prakash Industries v. CCE, Bhubneswer - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 30 (Tribunal) wherein .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nch decision in the case of Prakash Industries is not applicable as the facts are entirely different inasmuch as in the said matter HDPE Sacks, bearing the brand name of the buyer, were sold to the buyer and the use of the brand name was not in the course of trade whereas the tiles manufactured and cleared by them are sold in the market by their customers. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The facts which are not disputed are that the tiles purchased by the appellants already bear the brand name of the respective manufacturer of the tiles. After the process of printing and decoration undertaken by the appellants tiles are cleared and the brand name of the original manufacturer remained on the tiles on the reverse si .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t matter inasmuch as in the said matter the appellants therein were doing a job work for Mc Field Beverages (India) Ltd. who supplied them the bottles bearing their brand name. The Tribunal in the light of these facts observed that the item which is marketed by the appellants is aerated water which is put in the bottles which already had brand name of another persons and in the case of aerated water there is no other way of affixing the brand name except by putting them in the bottles which are already embossed. We, therefore, hold that the benefit of small scale exemption cannot be denied to the appellants as the Revenue has not established the fact that the goods manufactured by them were bearing the brand name of another person. We, acco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates