TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes, for the Appellant. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - M/s. Buildo Mat (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) is a proprietary concern dealing in doors/windows/ profiles falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Based on intelligence, the regional unit of the Directorate General of Central Excise I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 11AB of the Act. The appellants appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the Order-in-Original of the original authority. The appellants have come before this Tribunal aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dated 1-10-2003. The following are the short points in this appeal : (1) Whether the doors, fabricated by the appellants are excisable. (2) Whether the appellants are ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remises of the customers and become immovable property, they are not excisable. The above contentions of the appellants are not acceptable. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal has given ample justification to hold that the doors fabricated by the appellants are excisable. It is on record as seen from the invoices produced by the investigation that the appellant is selling plastic doo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent from the statement of Shri T.N. Harish Manager of the appellant Company. Therefore, there is very clear evidence that the appellant is using the brand name of the well known Sintex Company. The appellants have cited large number of cases wherein it is held that the affixing of the name of the manufacturer of the raw material does not amount to using the brand name of another. These cases are ....