2005 (5) TMI 561 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of conditions in Notification Nos. 5/1999 and 6/2000-CE.
2. Determination of connection between the product and the company name on cement bags.
3. Application of res judicata in tax matters.
4. Validity of contentions raised against show-cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The central issue in this case revolved around whether the appellants complied with the conditions specified in Notification Nos. 5/1999 and 6/2000-CE. The contention raised by the applicant's counsel focused on the requirement related to cement bearing a brand name or trade name of another person, emphasizing the need to establish a connection between the product and the company name.

2. The applicant argued that despite a previous Supreme Court judgment indicating a connection between the product and the company name, they could still dispute this connection based on new contentions. However, the Tribunal noted that the writing "subsidiary of Grasim Industries" on the cement bags clearly indicated a connection between the subsidiary company's product and the holding company, thereby fulfilling the condition of using a trade name for indicating a trade connection.

3. Regarding the application of res judicata in tax matters, the Tribunal highlighted that parties can introduce new contentions in subsequent years that were not previously raised and decided. Despite the applicant's attempt to distinguish the present case from the earlier Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal found no valid reason to deviate from the established connection between the product and the company name as per the previous judgment.

4. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the applicant's request for waiver of pre-deposit, emphasizing the clear connection shown by the company name on the cement bags and the quality assurance implied by associating it with the holding company's name. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit the required amount within a specified timeframe for the matter to proceed, failing which the appeals would be dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision upheld the connection between the product and the company name on the cement bags, emphasizing the importance of complying with specified conditions and the inability to invoke res judicata in tax matters to alter established connections between products and company names.