2008 (6) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Ansurkar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - These appeals filed by the Revenue involved the question of eligibility of the respondent M/s. Indo German Engineers for S.S.I. Exemption Notification. The period involved is April, 1998 to March, 2000. The total amount of duty demanded is Rs. 6,54,637/-. The Indo German Engineers (I.G.E. for short) manufacture ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (ATT) Size Year [2002] German Technology   2. It was held by the original adjudicating authority that they are not eligible for exemption since the logo is owned by CDraise, GMBH, Germany. The reason for use namely, exchange of goodwill and advertisement does not help them since reasons are not relevant. Notification No, 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98 and 8-99 dated 28-2-99, which defines the bra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e logo does not belong to IGE, and therefore, IGE is not eligible for exemption. The Revenue also contends that the use of logo on the machineries manufactured and cleared by the respondents boosts the sale of the respondents, inasmuch as the production/machinery of the German company are also marketed in India and the brand name is also known in India. Further, the respondents also provide servic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e contents of the label which has the logo as well as the name of the foreign company and the local manufacturer is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the brand name "CDraise" is owned by Draiswereke GMBH, Germany. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited above held that the term "brand name or trade name" qualified by words "that is to say a name or a mark" which would .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e above. Further, he also stated that penalty has been imposed on the proprietor as well as on the firm. Since it is well settled that once penalty is imposed on the firm, no penalty needs to be imposed on the proprietor, the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the proprietor is set aside. The Department's appeal is allowed on the above terms. (Pronounced in the open Court on 25-6-2008)
Case l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X