TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (1) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri S.N. Ghosh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - In the Impugned Order, the learned Commissioner held that the goods cleared by the appellants were covered by para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 as amended, which inter alia provided that the exemption contained in this notification was not applicable to specified goods where a manufacturer affixe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in Notification No. 175/86 with effect from 1-10-87 vide Notification No. 223/87-C.E., dated 23-10-87, nor did they make a mention of this fact in subsequent classification lists. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 should not be denied to them and why differential duty should not be rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nature of the product was such that if there was any crack or even slightest leak that gave chance for making way for liquids and consequently, the films became unacceptable to the customers and therefore, the defective films were sent for re-cycling in their own factory. In support of their contention, the appellants cited and relied upon the the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kamath Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he cover. Which was used for packing the films. Learned JDR. submitted that this Tribunal had been holding that it was not necessary that the trade-mark should be embossed on the goods themselves. He submitted that there may be goods on which the trade mark cannot be embossed. He also submitted that the liquids; perfumery products, aerated water products, etc,. are some goods where the trademark c....