TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (5) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i S.N. Ghosh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. Question involved in this matter is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 in respect of the following three brand names of Soaps manufactured by the appellants herein can be extended or not : (i) Addax Neem Soap; (ii) Swatej Neem Soap; (iii) New So....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the adjudicating authority has held that all the three customers to whom the soaps have been supplied are traders and therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and that these three customers as mentioned above, own each of the branch names. Consequently, the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86 has been denied to the appellants herein. This finding is, further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... distributor, M/s. Eastern Chemicals has been found. There is no indication whatsoever either in the show cause notice or in the finding of the adjudicating authority that brand-name "Swatej" thereof, belongs to M/s. Eastern Chemicals. Likewise, he submits that in respect of New Soma Beauty Soap, no evidence whatsoever, is on record, either in the show cause notice or in the adjudication order tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the same. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We observe that the finding of the adjudicating authority that the aforesaid three branded soaps belong to others, is based without any evidence. A mere inference from the names of the distributor, organiser in manufacture in respect of soaps, does not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that the brand-names were ....