TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Radio Cassettee-Recorder. The appellant affixed "Meet National" on their product. This was declared by them in the classification list in which they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 28-2-1986. The Asstt. Collector while adjudicating the case held that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was not available on branded goods manufactured by Small Scale Unit in India as 'Meet National' was nothing but an extended form of brand name 'National' the owner of which was not eligible to avail the benefit in terms of Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the ld. Commissioner held - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sony'. The ld. Advocate of the appellants relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Rotex Manufacturers Engg. (P.) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-III - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 492 (T). In this case the goods namely Solenoid valves and spares were cleared by the manufacturers by affixing the brand name "SEITZ ROTEX" with monogram SIETZ, SEMPRESS and ROTEX. The words SEMPRESS and ROTEX were stated to be belonging to the foreign collaborators and therefore their use in relation to the goods was considered by the department indicating a relationship between the goods of the Indian manufacturers with that of the foreign company. The Tribunal however observed that the use of the words "Sempress Rotex" and "Seitz Rotex" cannot mean that the words can have any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remains that the expression used in the marking on the products is a brand name and since it was a brand name, therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was not available to the assessee. He reiterated the findings of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the case law cited by the appellant. We note that the very same issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Vikram International cited (supra). The Tribunal after examining the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 held that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE cannot be denied to the appellant. We further note that 'Meet Nationa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
