TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. Bantex (P) Ltd., are the manufacturers of stationery. The allegation is that they are affixing the brand name of M/s. Bantex of Denmark on their goods and therefore they are not entitled for the benefit of SSI Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-1986 and Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993. The proceedings were initiated against them and the adjudicating authority apart from confirming the demand imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the then Rule 173Q/226 of Central Excise Rules 1944. The period involved in the appeal is from 1-2-1989 to 31-5-1992. A show cause notice has been issued by invoking proviso to Section 11A of the CE Act. 5. The learned adjudicating authority has held that the intention behind choosing the name 'A.J. Bentax' assumes paramount importance to the facts and circumstances of the case and 'Bantex' being one of the leading manufacturer of such products in Europe, any product bearing the said name is very likely to be associated with the foreign company in the mind of the purchaser of such branded goods to the effect that the goods are being manufactured either by M/s. Bantex themselves or the appellants herein has the collaboration with or under li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be considered as a Brand name or trade name of any other company for any reason whatsoever. Our attention was invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of VI JOHN Beauty Tech. v. CCE reported 2002 (143) E.L.T. 148. In the said decision it has been clearly held that the manner of writing the name cannot result in denying the S.S.I. Exemption, particularly in Para 6 of the said decision thereof. In this case it was held that printing of word 'VI JOHN' representing 'appellants' company's name and also the Brand name of another person, and embossing of letter on the cap cannot disentitle the appellants f or the benefit of S.S.I. Exemption. It was also held that goods having been cleared by appellants under their own Brand name which appeared more boldly and conspicuously cannot be said as bearing the Brand name of another person. It was stated that the above decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. A210. It was urged that as the appellant is registered under the Companies Act with the said name A.J. Bantex Pvt. Ltd., they have every right to use the company's name on their products and the S.S.I. benefit cannot be denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2005 (182) E.L.T. 225 wherein it is held that the mere affixation of a portion of logo, monogram etc., of another person is not sufficient to deny S.S.I. Exemption and something more is required to create an impression in the mind of the purchaser that the product is that of another person. The said factual findings arrived and the said principles laid down has been affirmed in para 16 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the revenue appeal filed and reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 3 in the case of CCE v. Damnet Chemicals (P) Ltd. 9. The mere use of certain words containing a foreign company's name is not sufficient to establish or suggest any relationship between the manufacturer and the foreign company. This has been laid down in several cases including in particular in the case of Rotex Manufacturers Engg. (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 492. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions : CCE v. Superex Industries - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 4 decided by the Apex Court and the Tribunal in the case of Cookie Man Foods India (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 425. 10. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion or advantage in the course of the trade, no company, that too a foreign company would have kept quiet or allowed the same to be used as such or otherwise as part of the name of the Appellant. This fact itself would establish that the entire impugned order passed on preconceived notions or assumptions cannot be sustained at all, either factually or legally thereof. The learned advocate further invited our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Sony Toni Electricals and vice versa 2008 (84) RLT 813 CESTAT Del wherein it was held that the use of Brand name 'National Super' having not been challenged by the owner of the international Brand name 'National' the benefit of exemption is not deniable. Further it was held that 'National super' is different from 'National'. 13. On a very careful consideration of the entire issue we find that the appellants have registered the name of their company as "A.J. Bantex Pvt. Ltd." This fact is not in dispute. It is seen that A.J. Bantex is the name the appellant company. We have also seen the Certificate of Incorporation. This fact is not in dispute. There is no evidence to show that anybody has cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase the name VETCARE should be considered as house mark as far as the appellants are concerned. Hence, they will also be covered by the Supreme Court decision in case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 1995 (75) E.L.T.214 (S.C.)." 14. In the case of Bhoruka Goldhofer Trailers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, even when the appellant used the name of the foreign collaborator Goldhofer and when the revenue proposed to deny the S.S.I. Exemption, the Tribunal held that Goldhofer is not Brand name of a company. It was held that the Trailer did not have the Brand name of another person and the S.S.I. Exemption was given. In the present case, it is the case of the revenue that Bantex is the Brand name of another company. Mere assertion is not sufficient and they should produce documentary evidence to show that A.J. Bantex is the Brand name of another Company. Merely by seeing the name A.J. Bantex on the products one will not associate in our view the product with the foreign company Bantex. It is for the Department to produce evidence. In any case, the decision taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vet care is squarely applicable to the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
