TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. These facts are not in dispute. The Department by s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 K.K. Anand for the appellants submits that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 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 by the appellants could not claim the benefit of the exemption in terms of the Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered 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 Notification. As per the exception, the benefit of the Notification cannot be claimed by a ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Systems Ltd. (supra) was on a different issue and is not attracted by the facts of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
