9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 348 - AT - Central ExciseSSI - Exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE - brand name of others - The products in dispute are club soda, sweet drinks, Bovonto etc - The assessees do not dispute that they are using the brand name of Kali Mark on such drinks but contend that club soda is not a branded product as it only bears the monogram crown which has not been established to be belonging to somebody else so as to be treated as a branded product - As such the judgment of the High Court holding n its judgment in the case - KALI AERATED WATER WORKS Versus UNION OF INDIA 1994 -TMI - 43958 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS held that the brand names / trade names Bovonto, Trio, Sola, Frutang etc. were brand names / trade names of M/s. Kali Mark, club soda is also required to be treated as a product manufactured by the family of Kali Aerated Water Works - Decided against the assessee.
Issues:
Confirmation of duty demands based on manufacturing and clearing goods bearing brand names of others, eligibility for benefit under SSI Notification No. 1/93-CE as amended. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, involved confirming duty demands against the appellants for manufacturing and clearing goods bearing the brand names of others, rendering them ineligible for the benefit under SSI Notification No. 1/93-CE as amended. The products in question included club soda, sweet drinks, Bovonto, among others. The appellants argued that club soda was not a branded product as it only bore a monogram crown not established to belong to someone else. However, the High Court had previously ruled that the brand names in question, including Kali Mark, were registered in the name of K.P.R. Sakthivel, and the appellants were manufacturing and marketing goods under these brand names. The High Court's judgment explicitly included club soda, leaving no room for the appellants to dispute its branding status. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the duty demands, rejecting the appeals. In both cases, the duty demands were upheld by the Tribunal due to the appellants manufacturing and clearing goods under brand names registered to another entity, making them ineligible for the benefits under the relevant notification. The High Court's previous ruling established that the brand names, including Kali Mark, were registered to K.P.R. Sakthivel, and the appellants were using these brand names for their products. The specific mention of club soda in the High Court judgment left no ambiguity regarding its branding status, leading to the rejection of the appellants' argument that it was not a branded product. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the duty demands was based on the clear findings of the High Court, leaving no grounds for the appellants to challenge the branding status of the products in question. The Tribunal's judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the High Court's findings regarding the branding of the products manufactured and cleared by the appellants. The High Court's ruling that the brand names belonged to K.P.R. Sakthivel and that the appellants were using these brand names for their goods, including club soda, formed the basis for upholding the duty demands. By reiterating the High Court's decision and its inclusion of club soda as a branded product, the Tribunal underscored the appellants' inability to dispute the branding status of the products in question. The consistent application of legal principles and precedents led to the rejection of the appeals and the affirmation of the duty demands against the appellants.
|
