TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE to the respondent company in respect of the goods cleared with the brand name "Dugar Tetenal" is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - in favour of Revenue. - Excise Appeals Nos.E/2700-2705 of 2005 - A/753-758/2012-EX(BR) - Dated:- 2-7-2012 - Ajit Bharihoke And Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Appellant Rep by: Shri S Vyas, Adv. Respondent Rep by: Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR Per: Rakesh Kumar: The facts leading to these appeals filed by Revenue are, in brief, as under:- 1.1 The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of photographic chemicals chargeable to central excise duty under Chapter Heading No.370700 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were availing of SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE. Shri Vinod Kumar Dugar is Director of the respondent company, Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Shri R.K. Mishra and Shri S. Talukdar are authorized signatory of the respondent company and Shri S. Majumdar is the production Supervisor. The respondent company during the period of dispute i.e. during the period from April, 1996 to November, 2000 was availing SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE. During th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) Imposition of penalty on the respondent company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules; and (e) Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on Shri Vinod Kumar Dugar, Director of the respondent company, Shri S. Talukdar, Authorised Signatory, Shri R.K. Mishra, Authorised Signatory, Shri S.K. Majumdar, Production Supervisor and Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Authorised Signatory. 1.4 The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 11.1.2002 by which - (a) total duty demand of Rs.18,10,628/- was confirmed against the respondent company along with interest on it under Section 11AB, (b) penalty of Rs.18,10,628/- was imposed on the respondent company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and (c) penalty of Rs.3,000/- each was imposed on Shri Vinod Kumar Dugar, Director, Shri S. Talukdar, Authorised Signatory, Shri R.K. Mishra, Authorised Signatory, Shri S.K. Majumdar, Production Supervisor, and Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Authorised Signatory under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 1.5 All the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its judgment in the case of CCE, Chandigarh -I Vs. Mahaan Dairies reported in 2004 (166) ELT 23 (SC), that the Apex Court in a recent judgement in the case of CCE, Delhi Vs. Ace Auto Company Ltd. reported in 2011 (263) ELT 3 (SC) taking the same view has held that when the brand name "Tata" does not belong to M/s. Ace Auto, the use of the brand name "Tata Ace" by M/s. Ace Auto on their goods would disentitle them for the benefit of SSI exemption under notification no.1/93-CE, and that in view of this, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that for the purpose of SSI exemption, the brand name "Dugar Tetenal" is different from the brand name "Tetenal" of M/s. Tetenal Vertribs GmBH, Germany is incorrect. 4. Shri Shekhar Vyas, ld. Counsel for the respondent reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order pleaded that the brand name "Dugar Tetenal" being used on the goods manufactured by the respondent is different from the brand name "Tetenal" and hence, the use of this brand name on the goods would not disentitle the respondent from the benefit of SSI exemption, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgements of the Tribunal in the cases of Meet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the judgement of the Tribunal in the cases of- (a) Meet Electronics Vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2001(133) ELT 485 (T-Delhi) and (b) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Mahaan Dairies - 2000(40) RLT 727(CEGAT-Delhi), and (c) M/s. Vikram International Vs. CCE, Meerut- 2000 (40) RLT 35 (CEGAT), 7.1 In case of Meet Electronics Vs. CCE, Meerut (supra), the Tribunal held that the brand name, "Meet National" is different from the brand name, 'National' and use of this brand name would not disentitle M/s. Meet Electronics for the SSI exemption. In case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Mahaan Dairies, the Tribunal held that use of the brand name "Mahaan Tastemaker" on the pickles manufactured by M/s. Mahaan Dairies would not deprive them of the benefit of SSI exemption even though the brand name "Mahaan" belonged to M/s. Mahaan Foods Ltd., a different company. In case of Vikram International (supra), the Tribunal has held that the use of the brand name ''Vikram National" and "Vikram Sony" are different from the brand name "National" and "Sony" respectively and use of these composite brand names would not disentitle M/s. Vikram International for SSI exemption. 7.2 However, we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|