9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would no doubt be classifiable under CTH 9021, but will not be covered within the Sl. No.11 of the N/N. 71/86 and hence will not be eligible for clearance at ‘nil’ rate of duty. SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - brand name of foreign collaborator used - Held that: - the goods have been cleared with brand name ‘SYNTHSES" and "AO/ASIF". A letter / certificate submitted by the appellant on the letter head of foreign collaborator supports the view of the Revenue that these are the brand names of the foreign collaborator - appellant not eligible for SSI exemption. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/850-858/2012-EX[DB] - A/55370-55378/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 20-7-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we have heard Shri Kamlesh Mishra, Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the respondent. 4. First we discuss the demand of duty for the period 1986-87 to 31.03.1989 wherein the Department's allegation is that the appellant manufactured and cleared goods without payment of duty. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the goods manufactured were covered by the notification no.71/1986-CE dated 10.02.1986 (SI. No. II) as amended by notification no.184/86-CE dated 01.03.1986. For ready reference, we reproduce the relevant part: SI. No. Chapter or Heading No. Description of goods Rate Condition II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification. As per the opinion, the items manufactured by the appellant cannot be considered under the term rehabilitation aids for the handicapped covered by Sl. No.11 of the notification no.71/86-CE. 8. From the above discussions, we are of the view that the items manufactured would no doubt be classifiable under CTH 9021, but will not be covered within the Sl. No.11 of the notification no.71/86 and hence will not be eligible for clearance at nil rate of duty. We also find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shah Shah Vs. CCE Calcutta - 1999 (08) LCX 0254 has observed as under:- 4. We find that while the Tariff entry under Heading no.90.21 covers a number of items listed therein, the scope of Notification no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their foreign collaborator. From the copies of documents submitted before the Commissioner (A) as also before us, we find that the goods have been cleared with brand name SYNTHSES and AO/ASIF . A letter / certificate submitted by the appellant on the letter head of foreign collaborator supports the view of the Revenue that these are the brand names of the foreign collaborator. In view of the above, the appellant will not be eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption in terms of the para 7 of the notification 175/1986 as well as para 4 of the notification no.01/1993. 11. In view of the above discussions, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders which are upheld and all the appeals are dismissed. [Pronounced in the open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
