Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (11) TMI 769

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondent is entitled to avail the benefit of SSI exemption notification. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1969/2006-Ex(DB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 61536/2016 - Dated:- 18-10-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Harvinder Singh, AR for the appellant 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. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... SSI exemption. Consequently, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel 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 paragraph 7.5.3 of ISO/TS/16949 [9001:2008] (Technical Specifications for automotive production an relevant service part organization), it is mandato .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he 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 Revenue is heavily relied on the in the case of Unison Electronics that the goods bear stocker with brand name of others. As in the case of Unison Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the identification marks were the brand name of others, in that circumstance, the facts of that case, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. We further find that in the case of Pethe Brakes M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re is no infirmity in the same. The appellants have not affixed any brand name on the gas cylinders in terms of the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. The appellants are required to mark the cylinders with the name of their company for the purpose of identification. We have gone through the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 wherein a specific provision have been made for marking and labeling of Company's name on the gas cylinders for the purpose of identification. Merely because the appellants are marking cylinders with their company's name by itself cannot be considered as affixing the brand 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 becaus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. supra affixing the house name or product name could not come within the ambit of the term brand name. 11. On the analysis of the decisions cited before us and the facts of the case that the identification marks are not the trade name or brand name of the buyers, in that instant case, we hold that the respondent is not manufacturing the goods having the brand name of others. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to avail the benefit of SSI exemption notification. In that circumstance, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (pronounced in the open court (18.10.2016) - - TaxT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates