9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein if the brand name of another person was affixed on the goods, after due process of law, the original authority demanded duty of Rs. 5.05 lakhs from M/s. Supercoat Industries for the financial year 1997-98 for clearances effected from February'97. In determining the period of clearances using the brand name "Sheenlac" on the cartons, the original authority had relied on the statements recorded from the suppliers of cartons. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the original authority. `The original authority had also imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC and had demanded interest due on the duty not paid. In the appeal before us and during hearing, the appellants have submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods and the primary packing had appellant's brand name. The brand name of another person was affixed on the secondary packing. The Tribunal held that when the mark impugned was at some place which was not under or encompassed under the levy, then such marks have to be ignored for the purpose of the Central Excise law, and the Notification. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the invoices raised by the assessee's distributors showed the brand name "Sheenlac". However, since the goods themselves did not bear the brand name of another person, the impugned goods were eligible for the SSI exemption denied in the impugned order. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE Jamshedpur Vs. Superex Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cases of assessee using another person's brand name on the packing, the goods involved were materials such as bicycles, generators and not a commodity like paints. He reiterated the reasoning followed by the Commissioner. 5. We have carefully considered the case records and the submissions by both sides. The demand has been made on the basis that the clearances of goods made by the appellants during the period February'97 to March'98 were not eligible for the SSI exemption under Notification No.16/97 dated 1.4.97 as amended. It was found that the impugned goods bore on them brand name of another person and therefore, in terms of para 4 of the notification, the goods became ineligible for the SSI exemption. 5.1 Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
