9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case are that, during the period under consideration, the assessee-Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of steel and wooden furniture which is being sold without bearing any brand name. On 09.10.2013, search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee-Appellants and the furniture was seized which was valued at Rs. 9,01,150/-. By the show cause notice dated 04.04.2014, the Department has demanded the duty on this amount. But, by the second show cause notice dated 19.01.2015, Central Excise duty demand was enhanced. Finally, by the impugned order the excise duty of Rs. 59,17,272/- was demanded and penalties were imposed. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. With this background, we h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furniture. Shri Gaurav Bagaria in his letter dated 07.12.2013 has subsequently retracted and submitted that "the said furniture item do not bear any brand/logo/sticker/trading name of your establishment". Similarly, Smt. Rachna Meel, Registrar of SKIT, in her cross-examination on 27.01.2017 (Q.No. 7) has averred that "the furniture supplied by M/s Rastogi Furnishers & Decorator does not bear any sticker/Trust Seat etc.". Lastly, he submits that the Department has taken the photographs of the furniture in the premises of SKIT and on the basis of these photographs duty demand has been raised which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR for the Revenue has justified the impugned order. He has fairly accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The buyers have denied that the furniture was bearing any logo or brand name, as mentioned above. 8. In the case of Essma Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. vs CCE, Chandigarh-II, 2002 (141) ELT 550 (T-Del.), the Tribunal observed that, unless and until the product is bearing the brand name which may be a name or mark, there cannot be a connection of the goods with some person in the course of trade. Similarly, in the case of CCE, Indore vs Kuber Industries, 2010 (249) ELT 78 (T-Del), the Tribunal observed that, affixing the family name or brand name in the letter head does not amount to the use of brand name of third parties. In the instant case, there is no third party who owns the brand name of "Rastogi". The Department has neither issued any not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
