9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Mistry Paints (P) Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was available to the excisable goods affixed with brand name of another manufacturer before issue of Notification No. 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 amending Notification No. 175/86. 2. Shri Rajeev Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on appeal filed by the Department, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector holding that it was clear from para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 that once a manufacturer had affixed brand name of another manufacturer, the benefit of the said notification would not be available; that as the appellants were affixing the brand name of their customers, they were not eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22-9-1987 to 30-9-1987. 3. Countering the arguments, learned SDR Shri Satnam Singh submitted that the goods were manufactured by the appellants on job work basis by affixing the brand name of their customers and as such the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 175/86 was rightly denied. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notification No. 175/86 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding sale being on principal to principal basis, the sale being guided only by commercial consideration, etc., are relevant only for determination of assessable value and such points are not relevant for determing the applicability of para 7 of the notification in the case. We accordingly hold that the appellants were entitled to the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 175/86 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
