TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registration for manufacture of various "oil field equipments". One M/s. Varco B. J. Oil Tools BV, owned by M/s. Varco International, U.S.A., (hereinafter referred to as Varco B.J) who are pioneers in the manufacture of oil field equipments in the world, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 6-10-1990 with M/s. SSAE to promote and incorporate a joint venture company in the name and style of M/s. Varco Sara India Pvt. Ltd. for the manufacture of equipments used in oil drilling viz. elevators, manual tongs, slips and their spares classified under Heading No. 84.77 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. M/s. Varco Sara are registered with Central Excise Range-II, Dehradun under Registration No. 2/Ch.84/R-II/DDN/92. 3.The Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter examining the facts came to the conclusion that the inscription "Varco Sara (I) Pvt. Ltd" does not dis-entitle them for the benefit of small scale exemption contained in Notification No. 1/93-CE. After relying on the several decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal as well as those of High Court, the respondents' appeal was allowed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue challenges the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is stated that affixation of the name "Varco Sara (I) Pvt. Ltd" through metal punching, was ignored by Commissioner (Appeals). The Explanation X defining the scope of brand name as appearing in the Notification, is an integral part of Notification No. 1/93-CE. Use of metal punch on products with name "Varco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents, before the Commissioner (Appeals), the demand raised against M/s. SASE got quashed. There is no challenge in the instant appeal of the revenue to the effect that, Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have confirmed the demand against M/s. SSAE as against the demand confirmed against the respondents. In fact, the prayer is to confirm liability against the respondents. 12.It must be remembered that the liability to pay duty is on the manufacturer. While the SCN proposed to demand duty from two different noticees, it was incumbent on the adjudicating authority to determine as to who was liable to pay the duty. The adjudicating authority ended up in confirming duty against both the noticees. The duty liability can be fastened only on one pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire text is similar to the text of " Varco" brand of a foreign company, even in that situation the text "Varco Sara India (P) Ltd.", can not be considered as the same as "Varco". On this specific point of law Tribunal in their order in the case of J. Prasad Polymers Ors. v. C.C.E., Meerut reported at 2003 (155) E.L.T. 486 (T) = 2003 (58) RLT 17 (CEGAT-Delhi) held that suffixing of words like "Mastana", "Parwana" after the words "Sunder" does not amount to use of brand name "Sunder". This case is squarely covered by the above judgement. 15.Accordingly we hold that, the respondent's affixing the name "Varco Sara (I) Pvt. Ltd. "would not render them ineligible to small scale exemption on the ground that the brand name belongs to anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
