Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise Versus M/s. Voltarc India (P) Ltd.

2015 (7) TMI 456 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

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 be allowed accepting the plea of the respondent that the Order-in- Original is 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

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. Chandraiah And Challa Kodanda Ram,JJ. For the Appellant : Standing Counsel for Cus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AT, 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 is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reviously 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 22.08.1993, No.38/97-CE, dated 27.07.2000 and No.9/98, dated 02.06.1999 on the ground th .....

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 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 the manufacture of electrodes. The Tribunal found that all through, the respon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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