2009 (7) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Excise Tariff Act, 1985, vide Finance Act, 2003, the respondents are manufacturers of RBD Palmolein. RBD Palmolein, packed and cleared by the respondents used to be exempt from Excise Duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, as amended by Notification No. 6/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003. This Notification was further amended by Notification No. 37/2003-C.E., dated 30-4-2003 and the exemption granted to RBD Palmolein bearing a brand name and put up in unit containers for retail sale, was withdrawn. In the wake of this amendment, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondents proposing to recover the exemption availed by it on clearances of RBD Palmolein made by it during the period 1-3-2003 to 30-4-2003. An amount ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the product and other person'. 4. We heard both sides. 5. We find that the Notification No. 6/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 amended, inter alia, entry at Sl. No. 244 of the Table to Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002. As per the amended entry at Sl. No. 244, "all goods falling under Chapter Heading 15.02 or 15.03, (other than refined edible oils, bearing a brand name and put up in unit containers for retail sale), are chargeable to NIL rate of duty. As per Explanation (ii) to the said entry, "brand name" means "a brand name, whether registered or not, that is to say, a name or mark, such as a symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words or any other writing whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el containing the name of oil and name and address of the manufacturer on a retail container of edible oil did not make the goods branded. Showing such details on the container was required under a different law. Following the above reasoning, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the Original Authority had correctly dropped the proposals to deny the exemption to the impugned clearances. 6. On a careful consideration of the facts of the case and the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which calls for our interference. We also find that the Revenue has wrongly relied on the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Grasim Industries (supra) case. In the said judg....