TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as M/s. VAPL or the appellants) are the manufactures of organic chemicals, disinfectants and other products. The brief facts, of the case are as under - 2.There was a dispute regarding classification of some of the products manufactured by the appellants and also their entitlement to SSI benefit under the relevant exemption Notifications in view of the fact that the Appellants used the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1994-95, the appellants were not eligible for SSI exemption as they were using the brand name/trade name of M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd, Bangalore, who were not availing the benefit of SSI exemption during the said period. He had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule I73Q(1) read with Rules 9(2), 52A 226 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants strongly ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission meriting careful consideration. (iv) The products manufactured by the appellants were different from those of M/s. Tetragon and registration of VETCARE as a trade mark by that company was irrelevant, inconsequential and immaterial to the issue at hand. (v) As the appellants had not suppressed any facts, the imposition of penalty on them is not justified. Shri K.S. Rav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (172) E.L.T. 221 (T) = 2004 (63) RLT 58 (CESTAT - Ban.) (iii) Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) 5.Ld. SDR urged that the decision of the Original Authority is correct in law as the appellants had used the brand name of another company who were not eligible for exemption during the relevant period. 6.We have consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Company as its brand/trade name. In the circumstances of the case, 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). 7.In view of our above findings, there is no justification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
