TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that fixing of the same will not call for denial of the benefit of the Small Scale Exemption under Notification No.8/98-CE dated 02.06.1998 inspite of the specific provisions that the goods bearing brand name/trade name of another person will not qualify for the said exemption ?" 2. A few facts - A search was conducted on the premises of M/s. United Tele-shopping Marketing Co. Ltd. (M/s.UTS Limited). Further investigation revealed that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of brand goods for M/s.UTS Limited. Show cause notice was issued to both the respondents. On 25 th June, 2001 order-in-original was passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise confirming the show cause notice. The respondent - M/s. UTS Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 8/98-CE dated 02/06/1998." 5. On behalf of the revenue, learned counsel in support of their contention has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., [2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.)] as also the judgment of the Madras High Court in Nivaram Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. CEGAT, Madras [2006 (203) E.L.T. 8 (Madras)]. Reliance has been placed on another judgment which and if necessary would be adverted to. We may point out on facts that on all pieces sold the words "Slimmer Excer cycles" were marked prominently. Further the sticker of the logo UTS was affixed on the lower side of the pedal. It was the contention of the respondents that the logo "Excer cycle" displ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly not entitled to the benefit of the Notification." 7. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Nivaram Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that if monogram or label is affixed in the product owned by other the benefit of the notification would not applicable. The goods manufactured by the Appellant were sold by one marketing concern M/s. Medo Pharm, Madras . The marketing concern's monogram was also affixed on the packing. The notification dated 1-3-1993 says that the benefit would not be available if the manufacturer affixes brand name of another person on the specified goods. The learned Judge of the Madras High Court was pleased to hold that as the Revenue had established on facts that the monogram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
