2006 (9) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... esides holding that it was liable to pay interest under Section 11AB. 2. In this stay application it has been argued that the benefit available to the applicant under the Board circular could not be denied to the appellant who was manufacturer of plastic spoons with brand name of the company to which they were supplied. The learned Counsel argued that the decision of the Hon ble the Supreme Court in Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), cannot assist the revenue because the Hon ble Supreme Court has not finally decided that case, as stated in Para 9 of the judgement, in view of the Circular dated 27-10-1994 and it was directed that the matters be tagged with the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fication shall not apply to specific goods which bear a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person. It is settled law that to claim exemption under a Notification one must strictly comply with the terms of the Notification. It is not permissible to imply words into the Notification which the Legislature has purposely not used. The framers were aware that use of a brand/trade name is generally to show to a consumer a connection between the goods and a person. The framers were aware that goods may be manufactured on order for captive consumption by that customer and bear the brand /trade name of that customer. The framers were aware that such goods may not reach the market in the form in which they were supplied to the cus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n ble Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Prakash Industries. Therefore, so far as the interpretation of the notification is concerned, the decision of the Supreme Court is final and binding and it cannot be said that merely because the Hon ble the Supreme Court ordered the matters be tagged with the matters pending before the constitution bench only for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the circular would prevail over the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court, it can not be said that no binding decision was rendered despite the declaration of law clearly made in the said decision while specifically overruling the decision of the Larger Bench in Prakash Industries, (supra). The applicant has ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X