9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of food supplements and were clearing the said products without payment of duty after affixing the brand names belonging to their customers. Thus, the department was of the view that the appellant is not eligible for the SSI exemption, since they were using the brand name belonging to another person. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the appellant, learned counsel Shri V.S. Sreenivasan submitted that department alleges that the appellant has used the brand name of another. They have not established to whom such brand names belong. The appellant contended that the brand names were coined by the appellant and the customers. The marketing agencies were marketing the products and were not claiming ownership of the brand name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to prove and establish to whom the specific brand name belongs to. Therefore, he states that the demand raised on the ground that the appellant had manufactured goods using the brand name of another is not sustainable. With regard to the demand raised alleging parallel invoices, he states that the appellant would fall within the SSI limit since demand in this context is very small. 4. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the view that it cannot be held that the appellant has been clearing goods with the brand name belonging to another person. 7. The decision in the cases of Mukur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 2001 (135) ELT 569, Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. SSC Shoes Ltd. - 2003 (162) ELT 421 and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Satyam Enterprises - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
