TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both sides. 2. The appellants filed these appeals against the common Order-in-Appeal. In this case, duty was confirmed against M/s. Chetna Polytex Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that they were clearing branded surgical adhesive tapes, which are classifiable under Heading 3004.90 of the CETA. A demand was also confirmed against M/s. Chetna Medicare Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that goods manufactured by M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. CCE, Chandigarh [1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.)]. The appellants also relied upon the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding their competitors where USP was written on the spool as well as on the packing of the branded surgical tapes. In respect of demand, from Chetna Medicare Pvt. Ltd., the contention is that they were clearing the goods by paying appropriate duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he brand name, then these are to be classifiable under Sub-Heading No. 3004.90 of the Tariff and in case they are not cleared with the brand name then these are to be classifiable under Sub-Heading No. 3004.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. We find that the appellants are only mentioning the logo as 'CM'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Astra Pharmaceutical (supra) after taking into consi....