2007 (5) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nding:- "6. I have carefully gone through the case records submission made with the appeal memo and submission made by appellants during the course of personal hearing. I find that basic issue in the instant matter is that whether appellants are eligible for availment of benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993 as Ginning machines and spares manufactured by the appellant affixed with brand name of others in letter head, invoices and not on machines will be treated Brand name of others. The letter dated 7-4-1995 referred by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order appears to have been addressed to the M/s. Devendra Industries, Ratlam and not to M/s. Kuber Industries, therefore not relevant in the instant case. I find that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not be denied. Also in cases (i) Brisk Surgical Cotton v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 226 (Tn.) (ii) Gas Filtration Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 536 (Tn.) (iii) Superex Industries v. CC & CE, Jamshedpur reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 122 (Tn.) CEGAT consistently held in the above judgments that merely on the ground that in the sales invoice mention of brand name but not on the goods shall not be hit by the para 4 of the Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2- 1993. Accordingly the exemption should not be denied." 2. In the present appeal, the only material being relied upon by the revenue is letter dated 19-6-95 addressed to M/s. Devika Industries. We may read the ground taken by....