2000 (11) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ief facts of the case is that the respondents are manufacturers of Bubble Gum and chewing gum with their own brand name and also under the brand name owned by one M/s. Gum (India) Ltd., Madras who are not eligible for the benefit of concession under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The issue involved is whether in computing the value of clearances for the purpose of availing the conce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the issue as per law. 3. We have heard ld. DR Shri Sudarsan for the department who reiterates the grounds in appeal and submits that the clearances whether of eligible brand name or not eligible brand names in the notification cannot be differentiated and have to be totalled up as first clearance to determine the value slabs and the grounds taken in the Commissioner's E.A. 3 application should in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elf. Therefore, we do not find any logic to support, to include the branded goods in the specified goods for the purpose of computing to exemption slabs but for the purpose of brand name exclusion excluding the same. In this view of the matter, when we find no logic to be supported by the law in the grounds taken in the appeal, we reject the appeal. 6. In view of our findings above, the appeal is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X