Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (6) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 384 (SC) - SSI Exemption - Use of third party brand name - goods are different - Benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 01.03.1986 and 1/93 dated 01.03.1993 - Held that:- Court fails to understand as to how the CESTAT could still hold that the brand name VETCARE and the logo which were owned by M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore registered in their name, belongs to the respondent. - even if the goods are different, so long as brand nam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ra and has been decided by this Court authoritatively in couple of judgments. - order of the CESTAT is erroneous and warrants to be set aside - Decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I Vs. Mahaan Dairies [2004 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Civil Appeal No. 2779 of 2005 - Dated:- 8-5-2015 - A K Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be a Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI) and is manufacturing organic chemicals, disinfectants and other products. It claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 01.03.1986 and 1/93 dated 01.03.1993 as amended from time to time which provides for exemption from payment of excise duty to the SSI unit. However, Notification dated 01.03.1993 as amended also contains a provision that in case the said SSI unit is using brand name which belongs to other company the benefit of Notification date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ting the adjudicating authority to carry out de novo adjudication after remand. The Commissioner passed orders dated 22.11.2001 confirming its earlier order. Against that order, the respondent filed the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') which has been allowed setting aside the decision of the Commissioner, holding that the brand name VETCARE belongs to the respondent and since it is a user of its own brand name, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner: - "As I have held that the subject goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 23.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and eligible for exemption from duty, I am not inclined to discuss whether the said goods are branded or not. However, as regards the products Halquinol and Chlortech/Sanitech, there is no dispute about their classification, the findings on the limitation holds good and no duty needs to be payable upto 31.10.1994 as there is no suppression or misdeclaration. Fu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

they are eligible for the SSI exemption inasmuch as they have used the said brand name in respect of their goods falling under Chapter 29 and 38. I find that their argument cannot be accepted after the amendment of Notification No. 1/93 with effect from 1.4.1994 and for easy reference, I reproduce the brand name clause: - "The exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name (registered or not) of another person." In the face of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s thus, clear that the brand name belongs to M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore, which brand name is allowed to be used by the respondent and in these circumstances, following Explanation 8 to the Notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.1986 would clearly become applicable. This explanation defines brand name and reads as under: - "Explanation VIII - "Brand name" or "trade name" shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad IV v. M/s. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics held as under: - "6. Explanation VIII defines that brand name or trade name. As per this explanation, it would be a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of the trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version