1998 (4) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ived by the appellants after clearances thereof under the benefit of exemption Notification 175/86-C.E. because Supreme Cases was enjoying the benefit of the said notification. The authorities below, however, felt that the benefit of the said notification would not be available to the said goods in view of para 7 of the said notification inasmuch as it contained the trade name or brand name of the appellants who are not eligible for the benefit Notification 175/86. The aforesaid goods were, therefore, seized by the Central Excise Officers and a show cause notice was issued to the manufacturers namely Supreme Cases as to why the duty on the said goods be not recovered from them. A show cause notice was also issued to the appellants herein as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bearing the brand name of large manufacturers would not be hit by the mischief of para 7 of Notification 175/86. Since the said goods are in the nature of metal containers, according to Supreme Cases, they did not follow the procedure of Chapter X of Central Excise Rules. Ld. Advocate has, therefore, submitted that in these circumstances, the demand of duty of the goods as well as penalty on the appellants and confiscation of goods is not justified in the face of the Board's circular inasmuch as the goods under consideration are merely for the purpose of casing CTC-4000. Metal containers according to the appellants have the same function. Ld. Advocate prays for setting aside the impugned order. As regards duty, ld. Advocate stated that ev....