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

2015 (7) TMI 456 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2015 (7) TMI 456 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 355 (A. P.) - SSI Exemption - use of brand name / house-mark - the name VOLTARC has been inscribed on the packets/cartons - CESTAT concluded that the marks are not affixed on the goods and hence it cannot be said that others brand-name has been affixed - extended period of limitation - Held that:- the Tribunal did not find that there was any justification in applying the extended period of limitation, and thus, the appeal came to b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the symbols that are used by both the companies are different and distinct in character. While the appellants used the symbol V with a dot with India written below the V in case of M/s.Voltarc Electrodes Private Limited, between two Vs, there is electricity sign below with the name Voltarc. It was also found that there was no mark on the product as such.

Tribunal is correct in setting aside the demand - Decided against the revenue. - C.E.A. No. 36 of 2004 - Dated:- 24-6-2015 - G. Cha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns of law for adjudication. i) Whether the said House-mark as concluded by CESTAT, shall fall within the definition of brand-name as per Explanation IX of the Notification No.1/93 CE dt.28.02.1993 as amended under the given facts: ii) CESTAT concluded that the marks are not affixed on the goods and hence it cannot be said that others brand-name has been affixed. As per the definition of brand-name under the Notification No.1/93 as amended it is suffice if the logo mark or trade name, etc. which .....

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 as seen in page 2 line 14th of the SCN) whereas the words VOLTARC have been previously used by VEPL with little change. As such, whether the conclusion drawn by CESTAT is correct in law or fact has to be determined. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s.Voltarc India (P) Limited is a manufacturer of electrodes. They were issued a show cause notice. The Common Order in Original was passed on 10.12.1999 denying the benefits of exemption Notification Nos.1/93-CE, dated 22.08.199 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he respondent setting aside the Order-in-original. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is in appeal before this Court. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Customs & Central Excise appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material placed on record. The facts are not in dispute. At the outset it may be noted that M/s.Voltarc Electrodes Private Limited and the respondent are two separate independent legal entities engaged in .....

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