9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri T. Prem Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Shri S.K. Sanghi, Proprietor of the appellant-company prays for adjournment on the ground that their Consultant is out of station. However, we have not agreed to this request in the view that we propose to take on this matter. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of this m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 to the goods manufactured by the aforesaid four persons, on the ground that of the same were carrying the brand name of those persons rather than of the appellant company herein and that para 7 of the said Notification did not allow the goods so manufactured by those four persons to the benefit of the said Notification. 3. We observe that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Para 7 of the said Notification and hence in terms of para 7, the benefit of the said Notification will not be applicable to the goods manufactured by each of those four persons because the brand-name affixed on those goods does not belong to the appellant company herein. It is also submitted that the four other persons are not eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E. For this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their own raw materials. Therefore, those four persons are manufacturers in their own right. 6. It is not disputed in the entire impugned Order that the other four persons had fulfilled the conditions of S.S.I. Unit as laid down in Notification No. 175/86-CE. The Judgment in the case of Harts Cocoa Products (supra) relied upon by the learned S.D.R., is not applicable to the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
