1998 (3) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cal blocks falling under Heading 8409.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On a visit to the factory of the appellants by the Central Excise Officers, it was found that the appellants were manufacturing cylindrical blocks and packing them in cartons having brand name of two different manufacturers and clearing the same without payment of duty. The Department alleged that since the appellants were packing the cylindrical blocks manufactured by them in cartons having brand name of other parties and the said parties were not eligible for the exemption under Notification 175/86, the appellants were not eligible for the exemption under Notification 175/86 as amended. The show cause notice alleged that after amendment of Notification 175/86 by No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... When the matter was called none appeared for the appellants.  It is, however, seen that appellants had by letter dated 25-2-1998 requested for decision of the matter on the basis of available records and merits of the case. 4. We have heard learned JDR in the matter and proceed to dispose of the case as under : The learned JDR submitted that in terms of Notification 175/86 no manufacturer who affixes the brand name of another person, who is not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption under the said notification would be eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 175/86. He submitted that it was not in dispute in the present case that the appellants have not been able to show that the brand name owners ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erprises v. Union of India [1986 (25) E.L.T. 906 (Bom.) = 1988 (15) ECR 29] (b) German Remedies Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay [1987 (28) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal) = 1987 (12) ECR 546] We observe from the impugned order that the Collector (Appeals) had himself seen the finished goods before passing the impugned order. He has observed that there was enough room for the manufacturer to put his brand name on the finished goods. He had observed that the practice followed by the appellants appears to be that they were putting the brand name on the container rather than on the finished goods themselves. This was largely a matter of practice followed by different manufacturers. We find that these observations have force. The mere fact that the brand n....