TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e label on the machine clearly reveals that the machine is manufactured by the Respondents - the exemption from excise duty is admissible as the said Notification would be applicable in the facts of the present case. The Respondents are not using the branded name of another person and the name used on the label affixed on the machines was that of the Respondents themselves. The decision in the case of Commnr. of Central Excise, Pune-II Versus M/s. Pethe Brake Motors Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 491 - SUPREME COURT] is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 271 - 272 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2017 - Abhay S. Oka And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. M. Dw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 12 August 2002 to 31 June 2004. It was stated in the Show Cause Notice that from the declarations submitted by the Respondent and the brand owner M/s. SAMS Machine Private Limited that both the Companies are engaged in the manufacture of the same excisable goods i.e. pharmaceutical machinery. It is also stated that the Respondent was using the brand name SAMS which was appearing on the front plate design of their product viz. Octagonal Blender and in which case the prima facie impression given is that of being SAMS brand of machinery. The TradeMark Registry, vide their Certificate No. 301080 dated 14 June 2004 has statutorily given the exclusive right to M/s. SAMS Machine Private Limited for the use of brand name SAMS . It was mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) found in favour of the Respondent and set aside the OrderinOriginal dated 22 December 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 25 August 2004 for the period of 12 August 2002 to 31 July 2004 and hence, was time barred and the extended period was not applicable as there was no willful suppression of facts on the statement on the part of the Respondent. 4. An Appeal was preferred by the Appellant against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by order dated 2 November 2015 rejected the Appeal of the Appellant and upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 5 May 2005. Hence, the present Appeal. 5. The learned Counsel appearing fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearances of ₹ 1.00 Crore. The Notification is subject to the certain condition. The relevant condition is in paragraph 4 of the said Notification and which reads thus the exemption contained in this Notification shall not be applied to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person ... . Thus, the benefit of the Notification can be availed of by the Respondent provided it has not applied the brand name of another person on the label of its machine. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has produced the metal label which is affixed to each and every machine. After inspecting the label, we have found that the label affixed on the machines contained the manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
