Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2005 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (4) TMI 64 - SC - Central ExciseWhether the Respondents were entitled to benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E.? Held that:- The Tribunal was clearly erroneous. As indicated the Explanation makes it clear that it need not be a trade name or brand name as commonly understood. Any name or mark or writing, even the name of a company is sufficient so long as it is used for the purpose of indicating a connection between the product and that Company. The use of the words "A quality product from ITL group" clearly showed an intention to show a connection between the product and the ITL group. These words indicated that the quality of the product was the same as that of a product of ITL group. If use of such words did not disentitle a party from the benefit of the Notification, we fail to understand what sort of words would disentitle a party. The decision of the Tribunal in this case is clearly erroneous and will stand overruled. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned Judgment and restore the Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 19th May, 1999. However, by this Order, the Commissioner has also imposed penalty in a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. While the conclusions of the Commissioner that the Respondents were not entitled to the benefit of the Notification are correct, the fact still remains that the Tribunal has in a number of matters given an interpretation as understood by the Respondent. It therefore cannot be said that the Respondents could not have taken the view they did. It cannot be said that they could never have concluded that they were entitled to the benefit of the Notification. We therefore feel that this is a case where penalty should not be imposed. We therefore delete the imposition of penalty on the Respondents.
|