Supreme CourtFull Bench(2002) 04 SC CK 0042

Indian Mgt. Advisors and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector of C. Ex., Delhi

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 16 April 2002 · Citation: (2002) 83 ECC 285 : (2002) 104 ECR 307 : (2002) 143 ELT 241 : (2002) 10 SCC 738

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. P. Bharucha, C.J · Shivaraj V. Patil, J · N. Santosh Hedge, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal Nos. 732-735/1995 and 499-500/2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 358 words

Civil Appeal Nos. 732-735/1995 and 499-500/2001

1.

The question in these appeals relates to an exemption notification which contains this statement:

"7. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this notification.

Provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods which are component parts of any machinery or equipment or appliances and cleared from a factory for use as original equipment in the manufacture of the said machinery or equipment or appliances and the procedure set out in Chapter X of the said rules is followed.

Provided further that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of the Khade and Village Industries Commission or of the State Khadi and Village Industries Board."

2.

In our view, the interpretation is plain. If a manufacturer affixes to the specified goods a brand or trade name of another person who is eligible for the grant of the exemption under the notification, he is not debarred from getting the exemption; but if he affixes to the specified goods the brand or trade name of a person who is not eligible for the grant of that exemption, he is not entitled to avail of that exemption himself. A person who is not a manufacturer and who, therefore, does not pay excise duty is a person who is not eligible for the grant of the exemption under the notification. If the manufacturer has affixed to the specified goods a brand or trade name belonging to such person, he renders himself ineligible to get the exemption under the notification.

3.

The civil appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.

4.

No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 901/1995 :

5.

On the application of learned Counsel for the appellant, the civil appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

6.

No order as to costs.