Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 647 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

2016 (10) TMI 647 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - TMI - Denial of SSI exemption - manufacture of own branded goods as well as the products which are to be marketed by some other person - use of other's brand name - N/N.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005 - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY Versus GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. [2005 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] relied upon - Held that: - the issue in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. is that the assessee was using the brand name of M/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble for the present case. - The decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-III Versus PAUL AQUOMIN & FOOD (P) LTD [2009 (6) TMI 299 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] covers similar issue and is relied upon where it was held that it is not necessary that the name or the writing must always be a brand name or a trade name in the sense that it is normally understood. The exemption is only to such parties who do not associate their products with some other person. The label merely indicates the pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant Is in appeal against the impugned order denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005 and consequently demanding duty alongwith interest and imposing penalty on the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of medicine and availing the benefit of SSI exemption of Notification No.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005 and paying duty at the rates after crossing the limit of ₹ 1 crore after availing the credit under 7(5) of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emption of Notification No.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005 sought to be denied and the duty demand confirmed alognwth interest and equivalent of penalty was imposed. Aggrieved with the said order, the appeal is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of West Bengal Chemical Industries Ltd.-2006 (200) ELT 68 (Tri.-Kolkata). 4. On the other hand, learned AR relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es. It is not true in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Paul Aquomin and Food (P) Ltd.-2009 (244) ELT 278 (Tri.-Kolkata) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: 5. After hearing both sides, perusal of the case records and cited decisions, we find that the impugned goods have been marketed with a printed label which shows that the packaged drinking water is being marketed by Mother Dairy, Calcutta. Nowhere on the label, the logo of Mother Dairy is printed nor anywhere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Tribunal in the case of West Bengal Chemical Industries (cited supra) is exactly in a similar case where packaged drinking water was bang manufactured carrying an exactly similar label which indicated marketed by Mother Dairy. In this case, the Tribunal has come to a considered decision that the relief was rightly allowed by Lower Appellate Authority and consequently rejected the Department's appeal. While doing so, the Tribunal recorded as follows : The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

afina' or Kinley' or 'Bisleri'. I also find that 'Mother Dairy' even if it is taken as a Brand Name, does not amount to a single product, which rather refers to a basket of products that include milk, butter, cheese, mineral water and what not. Taking into account the fact that the label clearly indicates that the product in question is marketed by 'Mother Dairy', it cannot be said that the brand name-'Mother Dairy'- has been used. I, therefore, do not fin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dingly, in our view, the present case, where the lower appellate authority has similarly held that the respondents are not using the brand name of Mother Dairy, requires no interference. 7. The ld. SDR has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Delicacies (supra). We find that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a product named Dant Manjan which was manufactured in the name and style of M.D.H. and the brand name was admittedly owned by M/s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n also does not support the Revenue's case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the said case as follows : "It is not necessary that the name or the writing must always be a brand name or a trade name in the sense that it is normally understood. The exemption is only to such parties who do not associate their products with some other person, Of course this being a Notification under the Excise Act, the connection must be of such a nature that it reflects on the aspect of man .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. (supra), we hold that the impugned goods are not using the brand name of Mother Dairy and hence the lower appellate authority's order requires no interference. The Department's appeal is rejected. 7. Further, we find that similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of West Bengal Chemical Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: 4. I find from the Grounds of Appeals that it has been argued by the Revenue that no Mineral Water is sold without a bra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rketed by Mother Dairy", and as such these, words cannot be considered as making use of a Brand Name. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed in the impugned Order that no consumer asks for 'Mother Dairy' when he or she wants to buy Mineral Water by referring to a specific brand - 'Aquafina' or Kinley' or 'Bisleri'. I also find that 'Mother Dairy' even if it is taken as a Brand Name, does not amount to a single product, which rather refers to a baske .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version