Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Bangalore Versus M/s. Vetcare Organics Pvt Ltd

2015 (6) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT

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 name or trade name of some other Company is used, the benefit of No .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. Mr. K. Subba Rao, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For the Res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anic 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 dated 01.03.1986 shall not be available to such a SSI unit. The Coll .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 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 case shall not come within the expression mentioned in the Noti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iable 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. Further to this, the whole exercise of demanding duty by the inves .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed 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 aforesaid findings which were arrived at on the basis of record, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e (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 mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented wor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o 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 with or without any indication of the identity of the person. There .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version