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

2015 (4) TMI 930

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he manufacture of Zip Fasteners classifiable under Heading No. 9607.0000 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. On 18.1.2005, the Central Excise Officers of Head Quarter Preventive unit visited the assessee s factory and found that they were manufacturing Zip Fasteners bearing brand name MIG, GVM and TLR belonging to M/s Madura Coats Pvt Ltd and cleared without payment of full rate of duty and wrongly availed SSI exemption Notification No 9/2003 dt 1.3.2003. The said officers seized the goods bearing brand name of other persons. Show cause notices were issued proposing demand of duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the assessee and its Managing Director, denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No 9/2003 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pute relates to mainly, admissibility of exemption on manufacturing and clearance of Zip Fasteners with sliders bearing the brand name of TLR, MIG and TLR belonging to the Madura Coats Pvt Ltd. The Ld Advocate on behalf of the assessee submits that the sliders bearing the brand name or trade name were supplied by M/s Madura Coats Pvt Ltd to fix in the Zip fasteners and the SSI exemption cannot be denied to them, as the sliders were not manufactured by them. They have manufactured only Zip Fasteners, which do not bear any brand name. It is further submitted that Madura Coats Pvt Ltd supplied the sliders to fix with the Zip Fasteners. Thus, the assessee have not used any brand name of others in their final products. She relied upon following .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... raid that there is complete misreading and a misunderstanding of the Notification. As set out hereinabove, Clause 4 of the Notification is clear and unambiguous. It says that the exemption is lost if the goods bear the brand/trade name of another. There are no other qualifying words. The term goods admittedly refers to goods which are otherwise excisable except for the exemption granted by the Notification. In this case admittedly goods are the elastic manufactured by the Appellants. As stated above Clause 4 does not provide that exemption is lost only for goods (elastic) which are sold in the market or on those goods (elastic) which reach customers without any change in form. Clause 4 does not provide that the exemption will not be lost if .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f indicating a connection between the goods manufactured by him and his customer. In such cases it makes no difference that the goods as manufactured did not reach the market. The use of the brand/trade name was in the course of trade of the manufacturer for the purpose of indicating a connection between the goods and the customer who used the brand/trade name . Clearly in such a case the exemption is lost. Now in this case there is no dispute on facts. The course of trade of the Appellant is making elastics for specified customers. It is an admitted position that the Appellants are affixing the brand/trade name of their customers on the elastics. They are being so affixed because the Appellants and/or the customer wants to indicate that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the meaning of the terms brand name and trade name as well as the words indicating a connection in the course of trade in the context of Trade Marks. In our view, the Notification has to be interpreted in the context in which the words are used in the Notification. Context in which such words are used under the Trade Marks Act or under principle governing trade marks have no relevance for purposes of interpreting such a Notification. " 5. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee manufactured and cleared Zip fasteners with sliders bearing the brand /trade name MIG, GUN, TLR belonging to Madura Coats Pvt Ltd. The main argument of the Ld Advocate is that the slider was supplied by the Madura Coats Pvt Ltd, which was .....

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