1996 (4) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR, for the Respondents. [Order per : V.P. Gulati, Member (T)]. - The issue in the appeal relates to the use of brand name by the appellants in the case of soda bottled by them. 2. The learned Consultant for the appellants has pleaded that the appellants are doing only a job work for M/s. Mc Field Beverages (India) Ltd. who supplied them the bottles bearing their brand name. He has p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 419. 3. The learned JDR for the Department has pleaded that this is a clear case where the branded bottled aerated water came into existence in the hands of the appellants and therefore the benefit of Notification 1/93 has to be denied. 4. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e learned Consultant has further pleaded that the earlier branded goods were excluded from the purview of benefit of Notification 175/86 only in the event when the brand name of another person so affixed by the manufacturer. He has pleaded that this later amendment clearly shows that the goods of the type manufactured by the appellants were not covered by the exclusion clause in the Notification 1....