9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) Branded and (b) Unbranded at Item No. 6 of these classification lists. In so far as their branded product is concerned they have claimed its classification as dutiable goods. But for their product, which is unbranded they claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification Nos. 43/76 and 56/76, both dated 16-3-1976. On examination of the container of the above referred unbranded cigarillos it was revealed that the so-called unbranded cigarillos could not be classified as unbranded. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants under No. 3312 dated 26-4-1978 asking them to show cause as to why the product, which is claimed by them as `unbranded' should not be treated as `branded'. 3. After taking into account the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nection in the course of trade between the cigars and cheroots and some persons using such name or mark. (ii) The lower authority has failed to take into consideration the fact that the appellants' unbranded cigars and cheroots are sold to customers in loose stock and the branded cigars and cheroots are sold under brand name as AVANTI. The cigars and cheroots are affixed with bandrol showing the brand name whereas the unbranded cigars and cheroots do not have any banderoi indicating the trade name or name of the manufacturer. (iii) The lower authority has failed to take into consideration the normal trade practice. The customers purchase these items either by brand name or they simply purchase these items without looking to any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the CET. Under this item, cigars and cigarillos are liable to duty on the individual units. The appellants in the instant case cleared the goods for their convenience in packs of 5 cigarillos and 50 cigarillos. An examination of the packs would show that there is no bandrol, brand name or any other type of mark on individual cigarillos. Even on the unit packing of 5 cigarillos except the name of the manufacturer and the date of manufacture and retail price no other name, mark, synthol monogrun or label signature or invented words is there. In view of this, the goods would be entitled the benefit of Notification Nos. 53/76 and 56/75, both dated 16-3-1976. He also brought to my attention the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant case, the impugned goods do not bear any banderol to indicate the identity of the manufacturer. The impugned goods are packed in the packs of 5 or 50 in plain containers which do not bear any mark or symbol, monogram or label signature or invented words or any writing which would indicate a connection in the course of trade between the cigars-cigarillos and some person using the name as mark with or without any indication of the identity of the person. The appellant is compelled to write the name of the manufacturer on the container in view of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. 8. In light of the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Indo French Pharmaceutical Co., Madras v. Union of India and Othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
