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

2016 (11) TMI 769 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

2016 (11) TMI 769 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - TMI - SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - Whether the identification mark put on the goods by the assessee shall be treated as trade name or brand name of others or not? - Held that: - This is a fact base case and buyers of the goods have filed affidavits stating that the goods purchased from the respondent having identification mark but these identifications marks are not their trade name or brand name. - The identification marks are not the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri Prateek Jain/Sh. Puneet Bansal, Advocates for the respondent PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are the respondents are manufacturer of bolts under sub-Heading 7318.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The period of dispute is from 1-4-1998 to 30-8-2001. During the period of dispute, they were availing SSI exemption. Certain quantities of bolts were cleared to their customers by putting their initial - VF, RE, TVS, DECE .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y the Joint Commissioner who vide Order-in-Original dated 10-6-2004 dropped the proceedings holding that the marks - VF, RE, TVS, DECENT, H.F., J.P.F. and POOJA FORGE are not the brand names but are only marks for the purpose of identification of the goods consigned to the customers. Aggrieved with this order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Joint Commissioner's order. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 3-3-2006 rejected the appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeared on behalf of the respondent submits the respondent is putting identification marks on the goods and not using the brand name/trade name of other person. Therefore, the respondent is entitled for SSI exemption. It is his further submission that the identification mark of the customer does not construe the brand name. He further submits that the bolts manufactured by the respondent are engineering goods and identification as per ISO 9001 is required for trade and commerce. As per paragrap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also produced affidavits of the buyers who claimed that all the marks put on the goods i.e. bolts is only identification mark and the mark is not the trade name or brand name users. In that circumstance, relying on the CBEC circular exemption. He further submits that the said issue came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhalla Enterprises-2004 (173) ELT 225 (SC) wherein it was held that the same cannot be treated as brand name of others. He also relied on the decision of the T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

goods by the assessee shall be treated as trade name or brand name of others or not. 7. This is a fact base case and buyers of the goods have filed affidavits stating that the goods purchased from the respondent having identification mark but these identifications marks are not their trade name or brand name. These facts Revenue. We further find that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held marks UTS and TSN which were the have not been disputed by the Re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmissions. The first contention raised by the Id. Counsel that the word "PETHE" used on the metal labels is not a brand name or trade name but only a house mark or family name. As it happens "PET HE" is a surname and anybody having "PET HE" surname can use the same without any restriction. We agree with the submission in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Supra). The word "PET HE" is only a family name and not reg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e it is not owned by any particular person. which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court reported 2006 (198) ELT A 175 (SC). 9. Further, we find that in the case of Malabar Oxygen Pvt.Ltd. (supra) again this Tribunal has observed as under: 3.After due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner in the impugned order is legal and correct in terms of law. There is no infirmity in the same. The appellants have not affixed any brand name on the gas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

name. The Commissioner has correctly analysed the facts of the entire case and has correctly noted the provisions of law and has rightly held that merely because the assessee has affixed their name in terms of the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 by itself can not be held that they have affixed the brand name. The assessees have not affixed any brand name even in terms of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of as reported in 1995 (75) EL IT. 214. The affixing, of Company's name cannot be co .....

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