TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rietrix is wife of the proprietor of the appellant. Interestingly, however, as per facts on record, RKMI themselves were not availing any SSI exemption. From the records, we are not able to locate any evidences unearthed by the department to show that although the ingots were made by the appellant, the invoices were issued in the name of RKMI or for that matter, ingots were sold only to the customers of the latter and on their instructions. There is no allegation that the appellant was a dummy unit or a unit set up only to sell goods of RKMI under their trade mark. Nor have the appellants sold the ingots as representing the production or sales of RKMI. There is also no evidence by way of statements of customers or any other corroborative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulds and dies also had the marking R K I on it. The appellant was issued with a SCN dated 3.10.2006 proposing to demand duty of ₹ 28,99,487/- with interest for the period from October 2001 to August 2006 on the ground that since the ingots manufactured bore the marking R K I which is nothing but brand name of another person viz. M/s. R.K.Metal Industry, the appellant is not entitled for the SSI Exemption. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate vide his Order in Original No.1/2007 dated 09.01.2007 confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 28,99,847/- with interest by invoking extended period and imposed penalty equal to duty. The lower Appellate Commissioner vide his Order in Appeal No.21/2008 dated 24.3.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yes, then who is the owner of such name and whether the purpose of using such marking is only for indicating a connection in the course of trade between the product and some person using such brand name. f) View expressed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CCE Vs Minimax Industries reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 166 (Del.) is very relevant in this regard and is relied upon by them. g) Ingots manufactured by them bore the markings as R K I only because they had obtained used moulds from R K Metal Industry and used them in the manufacture of ingots but not with any intention to indicate any connection between the ingots manufactured by them to M/s. R.K.Metal Industry. Further, the marking used has not acquired any s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oses of this notification,- (A) brand name or trade name means a brand name or a 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; 4.3 We thus find that clearances of specified goods become ineligible for SSI notification benefit for the reasons of (i) having brand name or trade name of another person whether registered or not of another person and (ii) such brand name/trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments, does not indicate any such statements of customers or any other corroborative evidence. Nor is any such connection brought out in the main body of the SCN. 4.6 On the other hand, appellants have submitted a number of certificates / letters from their customers confirming that ingots purchased by them are used as raw materials and that they had not purchased ingots from the appellant because of any brand name / trade name value. 4.7 Appellants have also contended before both the lower authorities that the mark R K I is not brand name owned by RKMI or any other person and that RKMI have also never claimed any ownership over the said marks. 4.8 In the event, we are of the considered opinion that use of the moulds by appellant b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
