SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

HARISH CHANDER, V.RAJAMANICKAM
Collector of Central Excise – Appellant
Versus
Wood’s Glamour – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.S. Arora, B. Dass, K.B. Dass

ORDER

V. Rajamanickam, Member (T)

1. The above Appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, with reference to the exemption availed under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 01-03-1986 by manufacturers of T.V. Cabinets. The issue involved in all the above 30 Appeals being identical, they have been taken up for decision for issue of a common order.

2. Arguing the case for the Appellant, Shri M.S. Arora, Ld. Junior Departmental Representative drew attention to the Notification No. 175/86-C.E:, dated 01-03-1986 as amended by Notification No. 223/87-C.E., dated 22-09-1987, Explanation-VIII, and stated that the brand name of the T.V. Manufacturers, M/s. Konark was affixed to the T.V. Cabinets manufactured by the Respondents and these Cabinets were meant for the T.V. Sets having the brand name "Konark" Rohini Delux, and, therefore, came within the ambit of the definition under Explanation-VIII and were not eligible for the exemption accorded to small-scale units. The order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that the trade name marked on the Cabinet established a connection in course of wholesale trade, between th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top