9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kha". However, the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is that since this is the home brand name that brand name belongs to the assessee itself which has to be treated as unbranded. This contention proceeds on the premise that the branded goods belonging to third party only would be treated as branded and insofar as goods sold under brand name belonging to the assessee are concerned, they have to be treated as unbranded. This contention is clearly misconceived and untenable. - judgment of the Tribunal is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Thus, holding that the assessee is not entitled to any exemption under the aforesaid Notification - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Civil Appeal Nos. 528-529 of 2008 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though, this contention was not accepted by the Commissioner in his Order-in-Original who raised the demand for payment of duty @ of 60% which is a normal duty payable on the said product, the Tribunal by the impugned order has been persuaded by the aforesaid contention and therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid notification to the extent of 32%. In order to appreciate the respective cases of the parties, it would be necessary to traverse through the Notification in question. This Notification No. 08/2001 pertains to SSI exemption scheme which was made effective from 01.04.2001 for units not availing CENVAT credit. The Notification exempt clearances, specified in column (ii) of the table annexed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining chewing Tobacco falling under Chapter 24.04, they would be entitled to exemption. As mentioned above, the goods of the assessee are preparations containing chewing Tobacco. Thus, the only question is as to whether branded or unbranded preparations in order to qualify for exemption under the aforesaid Notification, the assessee has to prove that goods are unbranded. We have already pointed out above that the assessee is selling these goods under the brand name Crane Gutkha . However, the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is that since this is the home brand name that brand name belongs to the assessee itself which has to be treated as unbranded. This contention proceeds on the premise that the branded goods belongi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at for the purpose of arriving at the aggregate value, the clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of other person would not be taken into consideration. That has no bearing on the issue which arises in the present case wherein the court has to decide as to whether the preparation of the assessee is under the brand name or not. For this purpose, one has to only look into the definition of brand name as contained in the said Notification. We would also like to remark that same definition of brand name appears in Note-I of Chapter 24, within which Chapter the goods of the assessee fall. We, thus, are of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Thus, while holding that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
