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 Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could be denied under paragraph 7 where the goods were cleared with the customers' brand names affixed on cords fitted into Mixies and TVs, and whether liability could arise if such goods were separately sold in the replacement market as spare parts.
Analysis: The brand names "Sumeet" and "Sears" were found to relate to the customers' finished appliances, not to the flex cords as independent trade goods. On that footing, paragraph 7 was not attracted merely because the cords carried the customers' brand names and were supplied to the appliance manufacturers. The decisive factual inquiry was whether those cords were thereafter sold as spare parts in the replacement market, because sale of the goods as such would bring the para 7 mischief into play.
Conclusion: The exemption was not to be denied on the existing findings, but limited liability could arise to the extent the cords were shown, on verification, to have been sold as spare parts in the replacement market.
Ratio Decidendi: A branded component cleared for incorporation into another manufacturer's product does not attract the bar under paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. merely because the brand belongs to the purchaser, but the bar may apply where the component is separately marketed as such in the replacement market.