9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id order did not bear the brand name of another person, so as to deprive its manufacturer of the benefit of small scale exemption. We may read the Commissioner's finding:- "6. I have carefully gone through the case records submission made with the appeal memo and submission made by appellants during the course of personal hearing. I find that basic issue in the instant matter is that whether appellants are eligible for availment of benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993 as Ginning machines and spares manufactured by the appellant affixed with brand name of others in letter head, invoices and not on machines will be treated Brand name of others. The letter dated 7-4-1995 referred by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lam reported in 2000 (123) E.L.T. 1011 (T) wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that merely on the basis of mention of brand name UDP in the invoice the exemption can not be denied. Also in cases (i) Brisk Surgical Cotton v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 226 (Tn.) (ii) Gas Filtration Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 536 (Tn.) (iii) Superex Industries v. CC CE, Jamshedpur reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 122 (Tn.) CEGAT consistently held in the above judgments that merely on the ground that in the sales invoice mention of brand name but not on the goods shall not be hit by the para 4 of the Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2- 1993. Accordingly the exemption should not be denied." 2. In the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturer without fixing the brand name (UDP). According to the learned Counsel, the evidence on fact is clearly in favour of the respondent, that the brand name of another was not affixed on the machines. 4. The learned Counsel would also point out that the dispute had arisen in the case of Devendra Industries also and this Tribunal had held in the case of Devendra Industries v. CCE, Indore as reported in 2000 (123) E.L.T. 1011 (Tribunal) that only 25 machines which were found to have been affixed with the brand name would be not eligible for the exemption. Appeal against that order was also rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. 5. The factual position as brought out in the Commissioner's order is clearly in favour of the respondent, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
