TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as affixed on the outer cartons to facilitate APSRTC to identify the supplies as having been made by IRP. There were several suppliers to APSRTC and M/s. IRP was one such who had given sub-contract to others. Similar contracts have been placed on M/s. Abilash Rubber Products and M/s. Navbharath Rubber Industries. The department initiated proceedings against the appellant and similar SSI units and denied the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that the appellants had used the company mark 'IRP' (India Rubber Products) on the tyre flaps supplied to APSRTC. Learned counsel submits that appeal of M/s. Abilash Rubber Products and M/s. Navbharath Rubber Products was considered by this bench which is on the like issue on the basis of the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade name. They had denied having supplied various branded goods to anyone including M/s. India Rubber Products for IRP brands. Shri K.K. Balachandar, GPA holder of the appellants unit denied having manufactured the IRP branded goods and supplied the same to M/s. India Rubber Products. The statement of Shri C.T. Joseph, the Authorized Signatory of M/s. India Rubber Products, also disclosed that they were supplying Precured Tread Rubber product to APSRTC. They put identification mark IRP on the Carton box/HDPE woven sacks in respect of Procured Tread Rubber, Tyre Flaps and Bonding Gum and in respect of Black Vulcanisng Solution/Cement, they stenciled their identification mark IRP along with other particulars. These IRP marks were required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name in terms of the Notification. In the case of CCE v. Turnbull Control Systems (I) Ltd., (cited supra), it had been held that affixing of sticker of company's name will not bring within the ambit of the definition of 'brand name'. Therefore these judgments clearly apply to the facts of the case. 11. The learned SDR relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd., (cited supra). In this case, the trade name was being clearly used by the holding company and hence, the benefit was denied. "These facts are clearly distinguishable. In sum, all these appeals are allowed in the light of the judgments and findings recorded supra with consequential relief, if any". 3. As the issue is duly covered by the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
