TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Apeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 764/CE/DLH/2000, dated 10-9-2000 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. While the appeal of the Revenue is with regard to the finding upon the valuation of the goods in question, in their Cross Objection the assessee has raised the issues regarding denial of exemption under Notification No. 1/93 and time bar. 2. With regard to Revenue's Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and name "Flash" which belonged to a Group Concern of the appellant, namely, M/s. Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. the shoes bearing the brand name "Flash" became ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93. 4. Notification No. 1/93 had been amended w.e.f. 1-3-1994. That amendment provided that "the exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s bore the brand name of another person (M/s. Vijay Polymers) and they were, therefore, not entitled to the exemption under the Notification. The learned DR has also brought to our notice the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 (Trib.) wherein the Tribunal held that if the specified g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case, we find that while the appellant indicated the use of the brand name "Flash" in their previous Classification Lists, they omitted to do the same for the Classification List filed w.e.f. 1-3-1994 and 1-4-1994. It is significant that it was w.e.f. 1-3-1994 that the condition relating to disqualification for exemption upon the use of the brand name of another person was incorporated in exem....