9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. One Lakh only) as ordered in the order-in-original 13.08.2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. 1.2 The impugned order in appeal inter alia upholds the order in original dated 31.08.2009 to the extent of confirming the demand amounting to Rs. 39,30,757/- alongwith interest for the period of March 2005 to 26.06.2008 under Proviso to Section 11A(1) and 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. An equivalent penalty of Rs. 39,30,757/- has also been imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2 The appellant has been represented by the Ld. Advocate, Shri T.R. Rustogi and the Revenue has been represented by the Ld. AR, Shri R.K. Majhi. 3 The matter mainly pertains to admissib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the facts and the submissions of both the sides, it appears that the appellant is under wrong belief that they can use the brand name "Autopal", and they can still claim SSI benefit under the Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 even when this brand name is owned by some other company of their group companies, namely Autolite India Ltd. 6.1 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-II Vs. Bhalla Enterprises 2004 (173) ELT 225 (S.C.) holds that if a brand name of another person has been used, benefit of SSI exemption is not available as objective of the Notification is to give benefit to those industries, which otherwise do not have advantage of brand name. In this regard, the Commissioner holds that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and such other person. There is no requirement for the owner of the trade mark using the name or mark with reference to any particular goods. The object of the exemption notification was neither to protect the owners of the trade mark/trade name nor the consumers from being misled. These are considerations which are relevant in cases relating to disputes arising out of infringement/passing off actions under the Trade Marks Act. The object of the Notification is clearly to grant benefits only to those industries which otherwise do not have the advantage of a brand name. 6.3 The appellant has also given the argument that they were under the bonafide belief that they can claim SSI benefit under the Notification No. 8/2003 (surpa), even when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
