2003 (2) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt, for the Appellant. Shri T.K. Kar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  Demand of duty of Rs. 34,64,164/- has been confirmed against the appellant and penalty of an identical amount has been imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC. Further, penalty of Rs. 8.50 lakhs has been imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Penalty of Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s M/s. TISCOG. No brand name was affixed on the goods manufactured by them. For the above proposition they relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Forest Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 570 wherein it was observed that the brand name belonging to others used in invoices, but not affixed on goods would not be hit by the condition of notification and would not result in den....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Cog Stools. Merely because the goods were manufactured as per the design of M/s. TISCO is no reason to deny them the benefit of Notfn. No. 1/93. The Commissioner has tried to differentiate the expression 'affix' and 'bearing' appearing in the notification in question after amendment vide Notfn. No. 55/94. However, for denial of benefit even after the amendment of Notfn. No. 1/93, the goods manufac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing a Brand name or Trade name (registered or not) of another person" It is apparent from the perusal of the para 4 in the Notification that the benefit of the exemption provided under the notification shall not be available to the specified goods, if they are bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. Thus befo....