9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be owned by any particular person. Therefore, the allegation that the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants were not eligible for the SSI exemption for the reason that they bore the brand name of another person is without basis. - Appellants had been denied the SSI exemption by the lower authorities without legal justification. In the result, the impugned order is set aside – appeal is allowed - E/193/2002 - 630/2009 - Dated:- 27-5-2009 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President and Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri K. Subash Chandiran, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - On 1-7-1997, officers of the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a cast back cover all together valued at Rs. 1,21,400/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and offered an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,04,463/- under Rule 9(2), 173Q of Central Excise Rules and Section 11AC of the Act. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the duty demanded as well as order of confiscation and fine. He modified the penalty imposed on the appellants to Rs. 2,00,000/-. 2. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the appellants have argued that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind to the facts of the case and the contentions of the appellants countering the allegations made in the show-cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e thereof would not deprive an assessee of the benefit of small-scale exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-02-1997. During hearing the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the show-cause notice basic to the proceedings there was no allegation that the brand name 'K' used by the appellants belonged to VKPL. The notice had only alleged that the 'K' used on the excisable goods manufactured by the appellants had been in use by VKPL. 4. We have also heard the learned JCDR for the Revenue. The case of the Revenue is that the appellants had used the brand name 'K' belonging VKPL on the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them during the material period whereby those goods had become disentitled to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d explanation (Explanation IX to the Notification No. 1/93-C.E.) will show that to satisfy the requirements of brand name or trade name., it is necessary that the trade name must indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication or identity of that person. Unless connection between the trade name and the person with whom the trade name is to be identified can be established, the requirement of brand name or trade name as provided for in the said notification will not be satisfied. It is an admitted case of the department that in respect of locks, the units are making locks bearing the same name or mark even though there is no person who claims own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
