TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontrary there are evidence, both documentary and through statement, that the appellant did manufacture cables with their brand name "DEELUX" during the impugned period. - we are unable to subscribe to the view that all the cables manufactured by the appellant during the impugned period are with brand name of another person, in the absence of any documentary/corroborative evidence to that effect. We find the confirmation of demand substantially relying on the statements of various people which were retracted later cannot be sustained, as the basic requirement of establishing the veracity of these statements by cross-examination has not been done. Brand name of DEELUX has been in the use of the appellant for many years before coming into e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deelux Cable Wire Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Proceedings initiated against the appellants resulted in the order-in-original dated 20/03/2012 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of excise duty of ₹ 70,80,969/-. He imposed penalties on the unit and Shri Deepak Sharma, son of Shri Major Kumar Sharma, proprietor of the appellant unit. The cables seized in various premises were also confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine. The appellants are before us against this impugned order. The learned Counsel Shri K.K. Anand submitted that the whole case of Revenue was based on presumptions and on certain selective reliance of collected facts. The points in his arguments can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error in supply of print block by the supplier; (iv) The enquiry with the dealers indicated that both Deelux and Deelux Premium Cables were available in the market and it is not proved that all their production are only Deelux Premium; (v) Their brand name 'Deelux' is part of the brand name 'Deelux Premium' that will bring association with another person making cable is not tenable. They were in the business of manufacturing cable with the 'Deelux' name for many years before the coming into existence of Deelux Premium brand. Hence, it cannot be said that they are deriving addition advantage by using part of somebody's brand name; (vi) Enquiries have not been conducted with the dealers who are dealing onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered for similar types of cables. This is a private limited company with some of the family members of the proprietor of the appellant as Directors; (b) Cables worth ₹ 10,62,456/- bearing the brand name of 'Deelux Premium' were seized in the factory premises of the appellant. Admittedly the goods manufactured by them are with brand name of another person; (c) Enquiries with the dealers revealed that cables with brand name of 'Deelux' and 'Deelux Premium' were available during the material period in the market. 4. With the above facts in view, the legality of demand as per the impugned order is examined. The fact remains that the impugned order heavily relies on statements given by various persons. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the SSI exemption was denied and duty confirmed. We could not find supportive evidence for such summary conclusion. 5. It is a fact that cables, as mentioned above, were seized in the premises of appellant. Even if it is conceded that such manufacture on the brand name of Deelux Premium is due to an error in the supply of print block, the appellant cannot escape the consequences of such error resulting in duty liability. Other than this, there is no direct or corroborative evidence to establish that the appellant manufactured and cleared cables with brand name of 'Deelux Premium' during the whole of period of demand. On the contrary there are evidence, both documentary and through statement, that the appellant did manufacture c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) We find that in the said case, the party had used the brand name and photograph of the founder of the group. The brand name owned by another company was used by R.P. Traders. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the brand name of DEELUX has been in the use of the appellant for many years before coming into existence of Deelux Cable Wire Pvt. Ltd. having different brand name Deefux Premium. In fact both the brand names were sought to be registered on the same day. However, the brand name 'DEELUX' is yet to be registered. Though the word DEELUX is an invented word, the brand name of M/s Deelux Cable Wire Pvt. Ltd. is known as Deelux Premium. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
