TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : The appellants herein received 251 cases from their supplier Supreme Cases for the manufacture of CTC-4000 Telexlink and Dotmatrix Printers with embossing of the brand name herein. The goods have been received by the appellants after clearances thereof under the benefit of exemption Notification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the said goods were not liable to exemption under Notification 175/86 and therefore, they were liable to payment of duty. Consequently, he confirmed the demand of duty on such goods is payable. He also confiscated the said goods with option to the owner of the goods to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 14,034/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants herein. Hence this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Board Circular F. No. 213/28/97/CX-6, dated 27-11-1987 as clarified in the case of collapsible tubes, crown corks, PP caps, Metal containers, HDPE bags etc. 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 Chap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellants have not disputed the fact that the goods in question are liable to duty and are hit by the mischief of para 7 of the notification. He also submits that the case is not in their favour by Board's circular as referred to above. The plea that no involvement of Revenue is there inasmuch as the Modvat credit could be taken is not tenable. The goods, therefore, have rightly been co....