TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (6) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-12-1988. 2. The appellants are manufacture of PVC insulated wires. The Department by show cause notice dated 23-1-1989 alleged contravention of the provisions of Rule 173B inasmuch as the appellants had not filed a fresh classification list w.e.f. 1-10-1987 after the issue of Notification No. 223/87 which amended Notification No. 175/86. According to the Department, after the issue of the amending notification, the appellant's product had become in- eligible for the benefit Notification No. 175/86. The Department alleged that the appellants were manufacturing branded goods for M/s. Indo Asian Marketing Pvt. Ltd. as per contract dated 21-11-1988 between the parties and the packing material as well as the packing slips were bearing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 by which paragraph 7 was added to Notification 175/86. He drew attention to the fact that paragraph 7 specifically provided that the exemption contained in the notification did not apply to the specified goods where a manufacture affixes on the specified goods the brand name or trade name of another person who was not eligible for the grant of exemption under the notification. He submitted that for attracting the rigours of paragraph 7, the affixation of the brand name should be on the goods themselves and not on the secondary packing i.e. cartons as in the present case. He also emphasises the fact that the printed cartons in the instant case were supplied by the buyers. He relied on the following two judgments in support of the propositi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor of Central Excise, Madurai - 1996 (85) E.L.T 78 (Tribunal) He also stated that in the instant case the brand name of the manufacturer was more prominently shown in the cartons than that of the other brand name holder which was displayed in much smaller space and less prominently. He referred to the Tribunal's decision in Palsons Drugs & Chemical Industries v. CCE, Calcutta reported in 1988 (98) E.L.T. 665 (Tribunal) = 1997 (23) RLT 265 wherein it was held that where the size of the brand name of the second brand name holder is displayed less prominently than that of the manufacturer, it cannot be said that the brand name display of the second brand name holder would make the manufacturer ineligible for exemption under Notification 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stage. We do not therefore, allow the said order to be taken on record at this stage or for placing any reliance thereon. 5. Shri S. Nunthuk, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has relied upon the following case law in support of his contention that when the brand name of another manufacturer is displayed on the goods and such brand name holder was not eligible to SSI exemption, the exemption under Notification 175/86 would not be available to manufacturer : 1. Super Star Welding Engg. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal) 2. M/s. Thio Pharma v. Collector of Central Excise - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 395 (Tribunal) 3. Collector of Central Excise v. Woods Glamour - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 153 (Tr....