TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some perod using such name or mark - the appellant has put mark of M/s Director Transport, UT, Chandigarh and M/s Chief General Manager, DTC, New Delhi i.e. CTU/DTC, therefore, its brand name of another person which is not includable in the clearance under Notification No. 9/2002 for computing total clearance. It is not intention of the notification that the said branded goods are be used in the course of trade and the same is clear from the language of the notification itself. In that cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/2003-CE. 3. The appellant cleared goods bearing a brand name of other person at normal rate of duty and value of same were not computed for determining aggregate value of ₹ 1 Crore as per Para 3(b) of Notification No.9/2002-CE or Para 3(a) of Notification No.9/2003-CE. During period in dispute, the appellant cleared goods to M/s Director Transport, UT, Chandigarh and M/s Chief General Manager, DTC, New Delhi on payment of excise duty at normal rate being the product bearing their marking CTU DTC respectively. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that value of goods cleared to M/s Director Transport, UT, Chandigarh and M/s Chief General Manager, DTC, New Delhi, are to be included for determining aggregate value of ₹ 1 Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to appreciate that there were no loss to the Government exchequer during the financial year, as the appellant has already paid duty @ 16% instead of 9.6% i.e before crossing the exemption limit of ₹ 1 crore. Further, he submits that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant is barred by limitation. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that as per the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Electrohms (P) Ltd. reported in 2000 (116) ELT 265 (Tri.) wherein the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 9/2002 or 9/2003. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hemkunt Builders reported in 2002 (141) ELT 376 (Tri. Del.). 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered or not, of another person, except in the following cases, namely:- The explanation to Notificatio No.9/2002-CE define brand name or trade name as under:- Explanation:- for the purposes of this Notification,- (A) brand name or trade name mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person; (B) Where specified goods manufactured by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person: Provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods which are component parts of any machinery or equipment or appliances and cleared from a factory for use as original equipment in the manufacture of the said machinery or equipment appliances and the procedure set out in Chapter X of the said Rules is followed: Explanation IX.- Brand Name or Trade Name shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark, (Code Number, design number, drawing number, symbol, monogram, label) signature or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e market. It does not crave out an exception for goods manufactured for captive consumption. The framers meant what they provided. The exemption was to be available only to goods which did not bear a brand/trade name of another. The reason for this is obvious. If use of brand/trade names were to permitted on goods manufactured as per orders of customers or which are to be captively consumed then manufactures, who are otherwise not entitled to exemption would get their goods or some inputs manufactured on job work basis or through some small party, freely use their brand/trade name on the goods and avail of the exemption. It is to foreclose such a thing that clause 4 provides, in unambiguous terms, that the exemption is lost if the goods bea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
