TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (5) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order 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 na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nagar for the appellant is that the brand name 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, submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.2 Yet another point raised by the learned 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 impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the brand name of the trader, Delhi Paper Products has 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 Notif....