1986 (3) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he hearing and that the case may be decided in absentia on the basis of written submissions. We are proceeding to do so accordingly. 3. On behalf of the appellants, it is stated that they had purchased from their factory at Bombay 3600 litres of Varnish under 4 different invoices on different dates. It is stated that these goods were under a particular brand name of the manufacturers and cleared on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. The appellants subsequently sold the same product under a different brand name and code number, although the containers and price were not altered. It is claimed that in this transaction, the appellants acted merely as traders and they were not manufacturers of the goods in question. Appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me new or different product, warranting the levy of duty. 4.  Mrs. J.K. Chander the learned S.D.R. reiterates the facts and the view contained in Order-in-Appeal. She, however, has nothing to add when asked about the relevant provisions of the Act or rules under which conversion from one brand name to another by a trader can be considered to attract duty. 5. The respondent, i.e., the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta has stated, in what he has termed as "cross objections", that the appellants have failed to produce any document evidencing that the impugned goods had discharged their duty liability at the time of clearance from their factory at Bombay. It is, further, added that duty paid excise goods cannot be received i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....c & Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others (supra) and also in the case of Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. v. Superintendent Central Excise & Others (supra). In these cases, it was held that merely because a company puts its label on the goods before delivery, such a company does not become a manufacturer of the goods. Nor can it be said that the goods in such a case can be said to have been manufactured on behalf of the customer, because by fixing of the label the goods do not change their identity nor do they become some new or different product. 7.  In view of the clear finding of the Appellate Collector in this regard, the respondent cannot now contend with any conviction that the appellants have failed to ....