1993 (1) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad sold the goods on the basis of contracts to their customers who are Government undertakings and they would not pay them the duty if they (the petitioners) pay the same to the Department. On merits, Shri Chakraborty submitted that a proper examination of the provisions of the Notification No. 175/86 would support their case. They manufacture and supply soap to customers like Indian Airlines and ITDC hotels which are Government of India undertakings marking them with their names (customers'). On this score para 7 of the said Notification does not come into play, as wrongly held by the authorities below, Para 7 states that exemption is not applicable where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name of another....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out. In the petitioners' case, only the property mark was given on the soap manufactured by them to indicate the ownership of the soaps which are not traded by their customers. Shri Chakraborty pleaded that stay may be granted. He pointed out that in an exactly similar case, this Bench had granted stay and the appeal transferred to Special Bench. 2. Shri B.B. Sarkar, learned Departmental Representative replied to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel. He supported the impugned order. He submitted that the actual wording of para 7 of the relevant Notification would support the stand of the authorities below. Explaining this point, he stated that the said paragraph lays down that the exemption will not be applicable if the goods ar....