9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Benefit of Notification No. 1/93 availed by appellants manufacturing rubber roll pipes. - Allegation of using a brand name of another person leading to denial of notification benefit. - Confirmation of duties and penalty imposition by Assistant Commissioner. - Appeal filed against the Commissioner's order upholding Assistant Commissioner's decision. - Stay applications filed seeking waiver of confirmed duty and penalty. Analysis: 1. Benefit of Notification No. 1/93: The appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 for their manufactured rubber roll pipes. However, their goods were found affixed with stickers bearing trade names "Parkman-T" and "Shree Laxmi." The issue arose when another unit, Parker Polymer Industries, Palghar, affixed similar goods with the trade name "Parkman PAL." This led to a show cause notice being issued to recover duty on goods cleared without payment of duty, as it was believed that using another person's brand name could deny the benefit of the notification. 2. Allegation of Using Another Brand Name: The Assistant Commissioner confirmed duties amounting to Rs. 9,05,490/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, based on the belief that the appellants were using a brand name of another person, thus potentially violating the notification's terms. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the prominent marking on the goods was "Parkman," used by another company before the setting up of the appellant's unit. 3. Confirmation of Duties and Penalty: The Commissioner's order examined the relevant provisions of the notification and noted that the use of the trade mark "Parkman" without the suffixes "T" or "PAL" was the most prominent marking on the goods. The Commissioner found that the appellants did not counter the findings that the trade mark "Parkman" was used by another company before their unit was established. The Commissioner also highlighted that the uniqueness of the trade mark "Parkman T" compared to "Parkman PAL" was irrelevant given the prominence of the marking "Parkman." 4. Appeal and Stay Applications: Following the Commissioner's decision, the assessee filed five appeals and stay applications seeking to waive the confirmed duty and penalty. During the hearing, the appellants relied on a circular of the Board stating that the use of certain names or marks not owned by any particular person should not prevent the benefit of the notification from being granted to all users. The appellants argued that the name "Parkman" did not belong to the other assesses and provided evidence from correspondence with the Trade Marks Registry. 5. Grant of Unconditional Stay: The advocate for the appellants demonstrated that the prefixes and suffixes added to "Parkman" were material inputs and would not create confusion in the buyer's mind regarding the connection of different manufacturers. The Tribunal observed the differences in the brand names and product identification between the appellants and the other unit, indicating that they were not suggestive of the same goods. Considering the prima facie case made by the appellants, the Tribunal granted unconditional stay of the operation of the impugned order.
|
