TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '). By the impugned judgment appeals filed by the revenue against the common order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore (in short the 'Commissioner') was dismissed. The Commissioner had dropped the proceedings initiated vide a show cause notice dated 4-5-1995 relating to availability of exemption under Notification Nos. 175/86 and 1/93. 2. Background facts, as projected by the appellant are as follows :- Vide the Show Cause notice, it was alleged that M/s. Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'BBPL') who were engaged in the manufacture of aerated water and were the franchise holders to M/s. Parley Exports Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PEL) in whose brand names they had manufactured goods viz., Limca, T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). It was also found that the Assistant Collector had passed an order permit ting BBPL, SSI exemption on "Bisleri Club Soda" and "Citra". However, it was noticed that the facts disclosed in the enquiries conducted were not placed before the Assistant Collector inasmuch as the investigations conducted revealed that PEL are the owners of brand name such as "Bisleri" for club soda and "Citra" and LFFL was under- evaluating the goods to keep the turn-over below the exemption limits. It was also alleged that LFFL who own "Citra" brand were engaged in the manufacture of flavours in their factory at Ahmedabad had availed exemption of the SSI Notifications as amended and had p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the show cause notice dated 4-5-1995. Revenue preferred appeals before the CEGAT. 4. After considering the rival submissions, the CEGAT held that the order of the Commissioner dropping the proceedings did not suffer from any in firmity. 5. The CEGAT did not find any substance in this plea as there was no such brand name as "Bisleri Club Soda" which has been registered by the Trade Mark Authorities. What was registered for use under the Trade Marks Act is the word "Bisleri" for goods "soda" being aerated water and words "Bisleri for Bear and non-alcoholic beverages and syrups". The CEGAT found that no evidence was brought on record to indicate the words as used exist as a trade mark or any other marks belonging to another p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Notification in question. Since these concerns could not have availed the benefits they have created dummy concerns to avail the benefits. It is submitted that in the circumstances there was necessity to lift the corporate veil to find out the true owners. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no material that the respondents had ever been parties to the so called arrangement, even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments but not conceded, that such arrangement was in reality made. There was no material brought on record to show that the respondents had any role to play in such matters as alleged. Even the show cause notice did not refer to any particular material to come to such a conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
