9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are manufacturers of aerated water. They are an SSI unit. They manufactured aerated water and cleared the same after affixing the brand name "Citra" during the period 1993-94. The brand name belonged to another person namely M/s. Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd. [in short, M/s. Limca] who were themselves on SSI unit eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28-2-1993. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... market the same affixed with the brand name. This contention was accepted by the Asstt. Commissioner. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was reviewed and, accordingly, an appeal was preferred by the Department to the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority allowed the Department's appeal. Hence the present appeal of the assessees. 2. We have heard both sides. Ld. Advocate Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods and be eligible for the benefits of exemption under the Notification in respect of such goods. In the instant case, ld. JDR points out, M/s. Limca were admittedly not engaged in the activity of manufacturing of aerated water though they might have been manufacturing other goods specified under the Notification. Therefore, aerated water manufactured, affixed with "Citra" brand name and cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied on by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Ess Bee Industries but such plea was not considered by the Bench in that case. Ld. DR has also sought to distinguish the cases cited by ld. Advocate, on facts. He prays for rejecting the appeal. 4. We have carefully examined the rival submissions. We note that para 4 of the Notification contains an exception to the rule of exemption laid down by the Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. in respect of their products. Therefore, the question whether the brand name owner was eligible for exemption under the Notification does not arise. The bar contemplated under para 4 did not apply to the appellants' case and they could legitimately claim exemption under the Notification in respect of the impugned goods. The decision of the Larger Bench in Namtech ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
