TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured Cement which was cleared by them under brand name D.C.C which was registered in the name of another manufacturer, M/s. Dinesh Cement Udyog Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner, under Adjudication Order dated 28-7-1995, denied them the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated, 28-2-1993, confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,31,096/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000, holding that admittedly D.C.C. brand was registered trade name of M/s. Dinesh Cement Udyog (P) Ltd; that Shri M.D. Tawari, Director of Dinesh Cement in his statement, dated 19-8-1994, deposed that the D.C.C. brand was their registered trade mark, they had their own manufacturing unit and did not have any other unit; that they had not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o paid Rs. 27,000/- to Shri P.K. Jha as remuneration; that these were financial tie up, common finding making payment on behalf of one unit by other unit, financial assistance; that there was common purchase of raw materials and transfer from one unit to another unit. The learned Advocate also referred to letter dated 25-3-1994 from Dinesh Cement addressed to the Appellant authorising them to use the trade mark D.C.C. on Cement manufactured by them; that the Appellants would be owner of trade mark D.C.C. from 1-4-94. The learned Advocate finally submitted that the adjudicating authority had not considered all the material placed before him and passed the order on complete different footing, He relied upon the decision in United Chemie v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een shifting their stand from time to time. Initially they took the plea that the words D.C.C. were written differently by them; subsequently they took the plea that both the units are related persons and third stand taken by them is that Brand name D.C.C. is jointly owned by them. They have not rebutted the submissions made by the learned S.D.R. that the statement of Shri Tawari does not support their contention as he stated in his statement dated 19-8-1994 (as mentioned in the Adjudication order) that D.C.C. brand was their registered trade mark and they had not authorised any manufacturer to sell D.C.C. brand Cement. We are, therefore of the view that the plea of both the units being one is an afterthought as if they were one and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
