Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA
P.C. Jain, SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JJ.
Star Processors Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I -Respondent
Order No. A-1715/Cal/97 Appeal No. E(SB)548/92, A-1715 of 1997, E(SB) 548 of 1992
Decided On : 18-12-1997
K.K. Banerjee,R.K. Roy
Per Shri P.C. Jain :
Question involved in this appeal is whether Absorbent Cotton Wool I.P. with label showing the name of the manufacturer (the appellants herein), would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No.185/87 dated 17.7.1987. Lower Authorities have denied the benefit of the said Notification on the ground that the label as aforesaid indicates the name of the manufacturers and there is a definite Colour Scheme inasmuch as the label has a 2/3rd upper portion in white and the lower 1/3rd portion in green. Therefore, it has been held by the lower authorities that the Absorbent Cotton Wool I.P. manufactured by the appellants has a brand-name as defined in the said Notification inasmuch as the label carries the name of the appellant firm i.e. M/s Star Processors Ltd.
2. Learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Banerjee submits that this issue has been examined by the C.B.E.C. on the basis of which a Trade Notice has been issued by several Commissionerates which state that merely because the name of the manufacturer and Drug Licence Number are given on the label, the benefit of Notification No. 185/87 should not be denied on the ground that Absorbent Cotton Wool I.P. has a brand-name or a trade-name in the aforesaid circumstances. Learned Advocate, further, submits that in view of the Trade Notice of the various Commissionerates, Revenue has no reason to go against the same. It has been held so by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) In the case of Poulose Mathens reported in 1997 (18) RLT 663 (S.C.) = 1997 (90) ELT - 264
(ii) In the case of Ranadey Micro - Nutrients reported in 1996 (16) RLT 501 (S.C.) = 1996 (87) ELT - 19.
(iii) In the case of Purewal Associates reported in 1996 (16) RLT 603 (S.C.) = 1996 (87) ELT - 321.
3. We have also heard the learned JDR, Shri R.K. Roy for the Revenue, who has reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, as already set out. As regards the Trade Notice, he submits that this being against the law, the Trade Notice has no validity and should be ignored.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. In view of the Apex Court's judgment regarding the binding character of the Trade Notices and there being an existing trade notice as pointed out by the learned Advocate, the appellants have a good case in their favour. Consequently, we allow the appeal with consequential relief after we set aside the impugned order.
