2006 (6) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. dated 1-3-2003 (effective from 1-4-2003) to the assessee in respect of their product ( Viha -branded soap) cleared from their factory during the period April 2003 to March 2004, after recording a finding that their aggregate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (vii) of para 2 of the Notification. In taking this view, he also relied on para 3 of the Notification. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the above view is erroneous as the relevant provision to be applied to the facts of this case was Para 3A of the Notification and not Para 3. Ld. JCDR reiterates the reasoning adopted by the lower appellate authority. 2. After examining the provisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) of this para reads as under : (b) Clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of another person, which are ineligible for the grant of this exemption in terms of paragraph 4; It is a fact admitted even in the impugned order that the Medimix -branded soap was ineligible for the grant of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 on account of the bar contained in Para 4 of the Notificati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X