1999 (11) TMI 762

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri G. Shiv Dass, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - This is an application for Rectification of Mistake in Final Order No. 1210/98-C, dated 27-11-98. 2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, relying upon the decision in the case of Taj Serpent Eggs v. CCE, 1996 (85) E.L.T.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cision, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is not available even if the manufacturer affixes the brand name on a product different from the product of the brand name owner and as such there is a mistake apparent on the record of the case as benefit of the exemption has been extended on the reasoning that the product manufactured by the respondent was different from the products manufactured by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....c. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that Madras High Court in Bell Products case, supra, has clearly held that Notification No. 175/86 did not stipulate that brand name or trade name should be affixed in respect of similar or identical goods. To this extent there was a mistake in the final order as it was held, relying upon Taj Fire Works Industries v. CCE, ....