Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 where the cartons supplied by the buyer carried the buyer's brand name, and whether the demand and penalty based on ineligibility under paragraph 7 and Rule 9(2) were sustainable.
Analysis: Paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86, as introduced by Notification No. 223/87, denies exemption where the manufacturer affixes on the manufactured goods the brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption. The decisive question was whether the brand name appearing only on the secondary packing, and not on the goods themselves, could be treated as affixation by the manufacturer for the purpose of disqualification. The cartons were supplied by the buyer, the manufacturer's own name appeared more prominently, and the other brand name related to switchgear rather than to the wires manufactured by the assessee. In these circumstances, the condition in paragraph 7 was not attracted. The basis for invoking Rule 9(2) also failed in the absence of the kind of clandestine removal or unauthorized clearance that would justify the demand.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption, and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.