1998 (4) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....M. Basu & S. Mitra, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. -  Heard both sides. 2. In this appeal filed by the revenue the issue for our consideration is the eligibility of the product, Rubber Hose Assembly marketed under the respondent's brand name "DYNAFLOW", for the benefit under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. 3. The respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant revenue. Mr. M.N. Basu, Advocate with Shri S. Mitra, Advocate represents the respondents. 5. We have carefully considered the matter and have given our due consideration to the submissions made by both the sides. 6. Under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended the specified excisable goods were eligible for small scale exemption subject to the various....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....application of para 7 of the notification may be relevant for the clearances of hose pipe only. The pipes in this case were not manufactured by the appellant respondent. The respondents with the inputs rubber hose pipe were manufacturing Rubber Hose Assembly. The metal fittings were affixed with the name of the respondent and the Assembly as such also carried the brand name "DYNAFLOW" which was th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se (Appeals), Calcutta had observed that the appellants had not affixed any brand name of another person to their specified goods, that is Hose Assembly. He had further observed that the brand name Dunlop was already there when the inputs were received by the present manufacturer and this would not make the goods as affixed with brand name of Dunlop. 9. We have already analysed the legal p....