9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctrodes Pvt. Ltd. who are engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes under the brand name of 'VOLTARC'. The appellant is also manufacturing welding electrodes. Both the units during the period 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1999 availed the benefit of exemption of the said notifications. They were working adjacent to each other. The show cause notice was issued demanding duty on the ground that during the relevant period, they have suppressed the fact of use of trade name 'VOLTARC'. On that ground, the Commissioner has confirmed the duty invoking the larger period and have imposed penalty on the Chairman of the appellant company. He has noted that penalty in respect of Section 11AC is imposable only from the date of promulgation and not prior to it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a company's name and not a brand name. It is stated that as it is only a house mark and not a brand name. It was also submitted that all the facts were known to the Department about the use of the house name on the letter heads, and hence there was no suppression. They challenged the finding recorded by the Commissioner on both these aspects on this matter. They contend that the appellants are not disentitled from the use of the house mark which are different to each other and also that the demands are barred by time. They rely on the following judgments : (1) Asoka Wafers v. C.C.E., Hyderabad [1994 (74) E.L.T. 725 (T)] (2) Dinesh Greases v. C.C.E., Madu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the electricity sign and the name 'VOLTARC' below it. It follows that it is only a house mark and not a trade mark. Nowhere it is shown that this mark is affixed on the goods and what is affixed is separate brand names which are different by itself. The sole ground on which the Department has proceeded is that this house mark is a trade mark and they are similar. On a clear examination, the house marks are different and not same. Moreover it is a company's name and nowhere it is shown that this mark is affixed on the welding electrodes. Furthermore, from the records, it is very clear that the appellants have been filing all the returns and the company's mark had been shown on the letter heads which are different. The Inspectors have put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
