Appeal Allowed: Exemption granted under Notification 175/86 for 'Sintex' brand goods

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras allowed the appeal, overturning the denial of exemption under Notification 175/86 to the appellants. The Tribunal held that the appellants did not contravene para 7 of the Notification by invoicing goods under the 'Sintex' brand without physically affixing the brand name. As the goods lacked the actual brand name, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not in violation of the Notification, thereby granting them relief from penalties and confiscation of goods.

---

---

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of exemption Notification 175/86
- Allegation of affixing brand name 'Sintex' on goods
- Interpretation of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras was against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, where the benefit of exemption under Notification 175/86 was denied to the appellants. The denial was based on the allegation that the goods were invoiced as 'Sintex' brand, which belonged to another person. Additionally, the appellants were penalized, and their goods were confiscated with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine.

The appellants contended that they did not affix any brand name on the goods they manufactured, even though the raw materials were purchased from M/s. Sintex Plast containers, the owner of the brand name 'Sintex.' The lower authority's objection was that by selling the goods as 'Sintex' brand, the appellants fell within the scope of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86. However, the appellants argued that unless the brand name is physically affixed on the goods, they should not be deemed to have contravened para 7 of the Notification.

The Departmental Representative argued that the appellants' goods were indistinguishable from the 'Sintex' branded goods, thus invoking the provisions of para 7 of the notification. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation. The Tribunal noted that the lower authority's finding that the goods were not affixed with the 'Sintex' brand name was crucial. The Tribunal emphasized that para 7 of the Notification only applies when the goods actually bear the brand name, not merely invoiced under it. Since the goods in question were not physically affixed with the brand name, the Tribunal held that the appellants were not in violation of para 7 of the Notification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting the appellants relief from the denial of the exemption under Notification 175/86.

---