Just a moment...
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 benefit of the small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86 could be denied because the printed paper containers received by the appellants already carried the mark of ITC on the inner flap, although the appellants themselves had not affixed that mark.
Analysis: The containers were received from the supplier with the mark already printed, and the appellants only carried out the processing to convert them into packing boxes. The mark was held not to be the trade name or brand name of the goods packed in the containers. The exclusion in para 7 of the notification applies where the specified goods carry the brand name or trade name of another person not entitled to the exemption, and the manner in which the mark was placed was treated as immaterial. The reasoning adopted in the earlier Tribunal decision, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the distinction between a house mark and a trade name supported the appellants' claim.
Conclusion: The mark of ITC did not attract the bar under para 7 of the notification, and the denial of exemption, duty demand, and penalty were unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of a small-scale industry exemption, the decisive factor is whether the specified goods carry the brand name or trade name of another ineligible person; it is not material whether the mark was affixed by the manufacturer or already appeared on the inputs or packaging at an earlier stage.