2001 (10) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, 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 n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... value of the clearances. 3. We have considered 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 clearance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egate value of first clearances. The ratio 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 wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X