Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1967 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of the brand name of others or not - it is contended that the inscription on the goods, viz., ‘IWI Newstech’ and ‘TS 300’ are merely the name of the appellant and the generic name of the machine with the speed and cannot be construed as ‘brand names’ of any other entity - HELD THAT:- It has been admitted by the appellants that these were fixed on the goods at the time of clearance. However, it has been pointed out that the first of these is the abbreviated form of the name of the manufacturing company and, by no stretch, could it be held to be that of one of the parent entities. There is no doubt that the overseas entity, M/s IDAB Wamac International may also be abbreviated as IWI but neither can be same initials be alienated from the appellant-assessee. There is no evidence on record that the abbreviation was deployed, and even associated with, the overseas entity in the minds of customers which is an essential requirement for disallowance of the benefit of the exemption notification. It is also on record that the appellant-assessee had clarified the nature of the inscription ‘TS 300’ as a generic indication of the nomenclature of the equipment, viz., ‘turner stacker’ with speed rating of 300. Again, other than a sweeping statement of the familiarity of this description with customers, not founded on any recorded evidence, it is found that nothing on record counters this claim. In any case, there is no evidence that the inscription ‘TS 300’ is associated with any specific manufacturer. The imposition of penalties on the other two appellants, under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, also flow from the finding of ineligibility of the appellant-assessee. The imposition of penalties is also without any foundation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|