9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Claim of small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003, use of brand name "VIPUL" belonging to another unit, confirmation of demand of duty, imposition of penalty, confiscation of goods, reduction of redemption fine. Analysis: 1. The appellants claimed the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 for manufacturing industrial valves. During an inspection, it was discovered that the valves bore the brand name "VIPUL," which actually belonged to another entity, M/s. Vipul Industries. The brand name "VIPUL" was found embossed on semi-finished CI castings at M/s. Vipul Industries' premises, with confirmation that it was their registered trademark since 1989. 2. Statements of the proprietor of the appellant company were recorded, admitting the use of the brand name "VIPUL" from M/s. Vipul Industries due to its popularity in the market. Upon realizing they were not entitled to the exemption, the appellants agreed to pay the duty, which was duly paid. 3. A show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty, interest, and penalty. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty and interest but reduced the penalty amount. The goods seized were also confiscated, with a reduced redemption fine. The appeal was made against this order before the Tribunal. 4. The appellant's advocate argued that "VIPUL" should be considered a house name, not a brand name of M/s. Vipul Industries. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that "VIPUL" was a registered brand name of M/s. Vipul Industries, used by the appellant and popular in the market. The duty and interest were rightfully confirmed, and the penalty and redemption fine were already reduced by the appellate authority. 5. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. The duty and interest were confirmed, and the penalty and redemption fine were considered appropriate. The judgment was pronounced on 27-5-2008.
|
