TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (5) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per : P.C. Jain, Vice President]. - Facts of this case are as follows :- 1.1 The appellant herein is a manufacturer of stamp pads and stamp pad ink. Besides using the brand name of its own i.e. `Supreme' on the said goods it is also using the brand name of another person i.e. Delhi Paper Products, a trader in paper and paper products. The brand name of that trader is `DEEPEE'. Those goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... owner in the present case is a trader and not a manufacturer. The Notification No. 175/86-C.E. being applicable to manufacturers of excisable goods, while using the word `person' in para 7 thereof in the context of that `person's ineligibility to the benefit of the notification will mean that the `person' should be a manufacturer. He, therefore, submits in short that the word `person' referred to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Advocate is that it is the burden of the department to prove that the person whose brand name is affixed is not entitled to the benefit of Notification. For this proposition, learned Advocate relies on Supreme Court's judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. K. Mohan & Co. Exports reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 811. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been admitted by the appellants' partner Shri Mukesh Gupta in his statement recorded by the authorities at the time of visit of the Central Excise officers to the appellants' factory. 3.1 He, therefore, submits as regards the burden of proof, that the facts are very clear that the trader being a person not eligible for benefit of Notification [175/86] nothing more is required to be proved....