TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used. In this factual background, in view of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of ACE Auto Comp. Ltd. (2010 (12) TMI 25 - Supreme Court of India) and Mahaan Dairies (2004 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the benefit of SSI exemption would not be available. - Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order denying the SSI exemption to the appellant has to be upheld. However, as regards the question of limitation is concerned, we find that during the period of dispute, there were a series of judgments of the Tribunal and also Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Fine Industries (2002 (10) TMI 114 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI), wherein it was held that use by an assessee of the brand name belonging to another person would no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rubber Industries is from 12.06.2000 to 27.05.2001. Both the appellants were also availing SSI exemption. While M/s. Inder Rubber Industries were using the brand name of Exide Super Boxer on the tyres were being manufactured by them and part of the goods were being cleared without putting any brand name, in case of M/s. Exide Rubber Industries, they were putting the brand name Exide on the tyres being manufactured and cleared by them and they were also clearing some quantity without putting any brand name. The Department found that while the brand name Exide belongs to M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. and is registered in their name for use on the batteries, the brand name Boxer belongs to M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and is registered in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and M/s. Exide Rubber Industries respectively along with interest on it under Section 11 AB and besides this, imposed penalty of ₹ 10,61,000/- on M/s. Inder Rubber Industries and of ₹ 1,59,000/- on M/s. Exide Rubber Industries under Section 11 AC read with Rule 173 Q and Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. Against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals), these two appeals have been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellants pleaded that during the period of dispute i.e. from 1.6.97 to 20.03.2002, in view of the judgments of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Fine Industries reported in 2002 (146) ELT 53 (T-LB), when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Mahaan Dairies (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that when a manufacturer uses the brand name belonging to another person, he would not be eligible for SSI exemption and it makes no difference whether the goods on which the trade name is used are the same as the goods in respect of which the trade name is registered and even if the goods are different, so long as the trade name of some other person is used, the benefit of SSI exemption would not be available, that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhalla Enterprises (supra) does not help the appellants, in any manner, as this is not the case where the use of the brand name was entirely fortuitous and could not on a fair apprais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de Industries Ltd. and also the brand name Boxer belonging to M/s. Bajaj Auto, M/s. Exide Rubber Industries were using the brand name Exide belonging to M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. The goods being manufactured by the brand name owners were different from the goods being manufactured by the appellants on which these brand names were being used. In this factual background, in view of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of ACE Auto Comp. Ltd. (supra) and Mahaan Dairies (supra), the benefit of SSI exemption would not be available. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order denying the SSI exemption to the appellant has to be upheld. However, as regards the question of limitation is concerned, we find that during the period of di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
