TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kumar, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri M.P. Singh, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per: V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - In these three appeals, arising out of following order, the issue involved is whether M/s Elymer Havells Pvt. Ltd. were affixing the excisable goods with the brand name of another person so as to make Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 not available to them. (i) Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Havells Industries. Hence, Appeal No. E/317/92-B. The Collector (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal dated 30-7-1992 also denied them the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for the same reasons. Hence Appeal No. E/5210/92-B1. The third Appeal No. E/2507/92-B has been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal dated 3-12-1991 in which Collector (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order demanding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooking after the Registration work. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as the brand name in question has been registered in their name and renewed in 1987, the mischief of Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 is not attracted as they were not affixing their goods with the brand name of another person. He however, fairly conceded that as this plea has not been examined by the Adjudicating Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the brand name was not registered in their name and as such they cannot claim that they were affixing their goods with their own brand name and accordingly Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 will be applicable and the exemption from payment of duty will not be available to them. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Para 7 of notification provides that the exemption "sha....