Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (2) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Central Excise Act, 1944; if so, whether the order confirming penalty is sustainable. 3.It will be necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to this appeal. 4.The appellant-assessee is a registered small-scale unit. It manufactures patent and proprietary medicines. It uses a logo "P/B". The assessee claims that the logo was assigned to it by M/s. P&B Laboratories Ltd. by a deed of assignment dated July 1, 1984. The dispute relates to the period from May 1, 1985 to December 31, 1983. On March 25, 1985, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee proposing to demand duty on the basis of the price at which its distributor, M/s. Pharmachem Distributors, sold the goods in the course of whole sale trade on the ground that the said distr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liable to pay duty for the extended period from May 1, 1985 to December 12, 1989. 9.The second ground is that after insertion of para 7 in Notification No. 175/86-CE, the assessee is not entitled to exemption as the assessee and M/s. P&B Laboratories Ltd., have been using the logo and it did not disclose this fact; duty was demanded for the period commencing from October 10, 1987 till the date of notice (12-6-1990) invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. 10.On both the grounds, the Collector confirmed the demand pursuant to the show cause notice dated June 12, 1990, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the assessee by his order dated October 21, 1991. 11.Dissatisfied with the said order of the Collector, the assessee filed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 11A of the Act for demand of duty for the extended period. 14.We have indicated above the facts which make it clear that the question whether M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was a related person has been the subject-matter of consideration of the Excise authorities at different stages, when the classification was filed, when the first show cause notice was issued in 1985 and also at the stage when the second and the third show cause notices were issued in 1988. At all these stages, the necessary material was before the authorities. They had then taken the view that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. If the authorities came to the conclusion subsequently that it was a related person, the same fact could not be treated as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... VIII. - "Brand name" or "trade name" shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or man with or without any indication of the identity of that person." 17.From a perusal of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., it is clear that the exemption granted by the notification is not applicable to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of anothe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce was allowed by the CEGAT; it accepted the assignment of logo in favour of the appellant but denied the exemption on the ground that it was being used by the assignor as well. 19.However, Mr. Jaideep Gupta submits that the Tribunal did not accept that there has been assignment of logo in favour of the assessee. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel. The tenor of the order, "the assessee had produced certain documents such as registration form, trade mark authorities assigning the trade mark to them but the fact remains that there was material evidence by way of seizure of goods manufactured by M/s. P&B Laboratories bearing the same logo much after the alleged transfer of trade mark to the appellants" discloses th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates