9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is whether the value of clearances of the goods affixed with brand name of another person is to be included in the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 175/86. 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents M/s. Products Ideas in spite of notice. As the issue involved is in a narrow compass we took up the appeal for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the submissions of the learned D.R. and perused the records. The issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Power Control [1992 (62) E.L.T. 662 (Tribunal)] wherein it was held that from paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of Notification No. 175/86 it is clear that for the purpose of computing the first clearances of specified goods only such clearanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tio of the decision in Ramkrishna Engg.'s case is not applicable as the appellants therein were clearing the specified goods on payment of duty after exhausting the exemption limit in respect of one product. The facts in the present matter are different as the respondents cleared the goods after affixing the brand name of an ineligible person in respect of which the benefit of exemption is not ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
