2010 (8) TMI 930

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aran, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The issue relates to the eligibility of the appellants for small scale exemption. Unbranded chewing tobacco is one of the specified goods covered under the small scale exemption notification. Branded chewing tobacco on the other hand is not covered under the scheme. Goods manufactured with the brand name of another person are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... name of ARR Seevat Pvt. Ltd. it has been argued by the learned counsel Shri K.S. Venkatagiri that the entire brand name/trademark has not been used inasmuch as the picture in the brand name/trademark does not find a place on the labels used by the appellants during the first period. However, we find that in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Rukmani Packwell Traders - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), the Ho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalty. As such, Appeal No. E/658/2004 is partly allowed in the above terms. 4. As for the latter period from 1-4-2004, the appellants have only indicated on the label that the impugned goods are manufactured by ARR Enterprise. Such an indication is required to be made on the labels statutorily as also under Circular No. 25/90-CX.8 dated 18-4-1990 issued by the Board. The examination of the la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X