2004 (6) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. 2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that both the Appellants manufacture PET Bottles; that the bottles manufactured by B.R. Oil Mills were inscribed with the words BR-PET, BR PET HAR EXADCP; that similarly bottles manufactured by M/s. S.P. Packagings were inscribed with the words SP-PET, SP PET HAR EXC, and SP PET HAR EXADCPL; that in the month of June, 2000, the dyes of both the Appellants needed to be reconditioned and were sent to M/s. Kuldeep Engineering Works; that after the dyes were repaired, due to oversight, the dyes of B.R. Oil Mills were sent to the factory of M/s. SP Packagings and the dyes of SP Packagings were sent to BR Oil Mills as the dyes of both the applicants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rguments, Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that if the mistake had occurred on account of getting the wrong dyes from the repairer, the mistake should have been knowrn to the Appellants immediately after they had put the dyes in use; that they have continued to manufacture the goods i.e. PET Bottles for a number of days, probably 20 days; that this fact clearly shows that there was no mistake; that Shri Suresh Chand of Kuldeep Engg. Works, who had repaired the dyes, had denied in his statement dated 21-11-2000 to have given dyes one factory to the other or vice versa. She also submitted that the Board's Circular F. No. 213/28/87-CX-6 dated 27-11-87 is not applicable as the brand name on the PET Bottles is not of a manufacturer or....