9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 428 - HC - Central ExciseClearance of refined groundnut oil, sunflower oil and palm oil using the logo S.V.S. & SONS . - benefit of Notification No.6/2002 dated 1.3.02 - Benefit of nil duty - Held that - It is evident from the record that all the three authorities have uniformly taken the view that the goods cleared by the 2nd respondent/assessee bear a superscription manufactured and packed by S.V.S. & Sons , which is not a brand name or trade name. There is a clear distinction between the brand name used and the superscription as found in the packaging. On this finding of fact, all the three authorities have held that the 2nd respondent/assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification 06/02 dated 1.3.02. In the light of such a concurrent finding, this Court is of the considered view that said concurrent finding of fact does not need to be interfered with, as there is no error or infirmity in the finding arrived at by the lower authorities. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal as there is no question of law that arise for consideration. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Interpretation of brand name/trade name for SSI exemption notifications. - Whether the use of 'S.V.S. & Sons' on product label constitutes a brand name. - Benefit of Notification No.6/2002 dated 1.3.02 extended to the assessee. - Appeal challenging the finding of fact by the Revenue. Interpretation of Brand Name/Trade Name: The case involved the interpretation of what constitutes a brand name or trade name for the purpose of Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption notifications. The Revenue relied on judgments by the Apex Court to argue their case. The definition of 'brand name' given in the relevant notification was compared to definitions in previous cases. The respondent had registered a combination of alphabets as a trademark, which was considered during the dispute. The court analyzed the use of 'S.V.S.' on the product label and the registered trademark, ultimately concluding that the markings on the label did not constitute a brand name. Use of 'S.V.S. & Sons' on Product Label: The Revenue appealed the decision of the Tribunal, arguing that the product label superscription 'manufactured and packed by S.V.S. & Sons' did not qualify as a brand name or trade name. However, all three authorities, including the Tribunal, held that the superscription was not a brand name but merely represented the name of the assessee. The court upheld the concurrent finding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification 06/02 dated 1.3.02 based on this distinction between the brand name and the superscription on the packaging. Benefit of Notification No.6/2002 Extended: The case revolved around the benefit of Notification No.6/2002 dated 1.3.02, which was extended to the assessee by the Assistant Commissioner initially. The Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the factual nature of the issue and the absence of any substantial question of law. The court, after careful consideration, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no error or infirmity in the concurrent finding of fact by the lower authorities. Appeal Challenging Finding of Fact: The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the finding of fact by the Tribunal, contending that the use of 'S.V.S. & Sons' on the product label did not constitute a brand name or trade name. However, the court found that the lower authorities had uniformly held that the superscription on the product label was not a brand name. As there was no error or infirmity in this finding, the court dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and ruling out any interference as there was no question of law for consideration.
|
