Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 481 - CESTAT MUMBAISSI exemption - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 1/3/2003 - use of brand name of other person - The claim of the appellant right from beginning is that the goods manufactured and sold by them do not bear the brand name of Sunflex , it is only mentioned on the invoice, whereas the same was not affixed on the product. Held that: - Reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II Versus M/s AUSTRALIAN FOODS INDIA LTD. [2013 (1) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that even if brand is not affixed on the product but the product is sold by using the identity of brand, then also SSI exemption is not available - In the present case as per the customer's acceptance agreement mention of brand on invoice clearly establishes that the goods with the identity of sunflex brand were being sold. The invoice itself is an evidence that sunflex branded goods were being manufactured and sold by the appellants. It is not only the invoice which bear the description of sunflex brand goods but also the customers in their statements accepted that they were purchasing sunflex range of products that again shows that the customers were buying the products i.e. sunflex brand venetion blinds, vertical blinds, roller blinds. The appellant is not entitled for the SSI exemption - Decided against the assessee.
|