Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (4) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elonging to M/s. Mahaan Foods Ltd. [in short, M/s. MFL] and would be paying duty on the product at full rate on account of use of other s brand name. In respect of branded pickles, they declared that they would be using their own brand name Mahaan TASTEMAKER and would be paying duty on the product at the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 (prior to 2-6-1998, Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997). The respondents later informed the department that Mahaan was a registered brand name of M/s. MFL and that in 1997 they had applied for registration of the brand name Mahaan TASTEMAKER for use on pickles. Later on, the respondents filed two more declarations in respect of pickles, one effec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s against the orders of the adjudicating authority were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeals of the Revenue. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. 3. We note that the challenge in these appeals is only in relation to the extent of duty liability on the branded pickles cleared from the respondents factory during the aforesaid periods. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 16/97-C.E., 8/98-C.E. and 8/99-C.E. to the respondents in respect of the branded pickles on the ground that the brand name Mahaan TASTEMAKER affixed on the containers of the product belonged to another person namely, M/s. MFL. The lower appellate authority reversed the decision of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y admitted to this effect. Yet another ground raised by the Revenue is that the respondents were using the same monogram interchangeably for the two items viz. pure ghee and pickle. The Revenue has further raised a ground that the Tribunal s decision in the case of Khanna Industries (supra) is not to be relied upon inasmuch as the department has challenged that decision in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Revenue has also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Board s Circular dated 30-12-1988 erroneously. 5. Ld. SDR, Sh. M.D. Singh, reiterated the above grounds of the appeals. He submitted that the brand name Mahaan was admittedly the registered brand name of M/s. MFL and the same brand name was used by the respond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... specified food products and not for pickles like what was manufactured and cleared by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the respondents had applied for registration of the brand name Mahaan TASTEMAKER for their products viz. pickles. That application was submitted prior to the period of dispute. Moreover, the party admittedly declared to the department that they would be using the brand name on the said products. Since the brand name Mahaan TASTEMAKER was used by the respondent on a product different from the products of M/s. MFL for which the brand name Mahaan was registered, there is no justification for taking a view that the use of the word Mahaan on the respondent s product indicated a connection between the produ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ograph of Sh. A.R. Ramasami as above. The Tribunal held that the two brand names were not the same even though they might at best be said to be deceptively similar. We also note that the decision in Khanna Industries (supra) has been appositely relied on by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in differentiating brand names in the instant case. Mere pendency of Department s appeal before the Apex Court against that decision will not, per se, affect the precedent value of the decision. Ld. DR has no case that the Apex Court has stayed the operation of the Tribunal s decision. With regard to his reliance on the Madras High Court s decision in Bell Products (supra), we observe that there is nothing in that decision to support any of the grounds of the R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates