9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8/98-C.E. dated 2-6-98. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand of Rs.20,828/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of CER, 1944. In the light of the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Grasim Industries Ltd. reported, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “It is not necessary that the name or the writing must always be a brand name or trade name in the sense that it is normally understood. The exemption is only to such parties who do not associate their products with some other person held that- In the present case, it is clear that the names, the other details in the labels and the monograms/logo taken together clearly indicate a connection between the product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der which word "OYSTER" was mentioned. The representative of the respondents admitted clearance of the goods with such marking and monogram to M/s. OYSTER Lab Ltd. and also with similar marking to one M/s. Focus Health Care (P). The partner of M/s. Oyester Lab admitted that they purchase medicines from the respondent on which their monogram was printed as above. The representative of M/s. Focus Health Care (P).also admitted that the respondents used the insignia on syrup chestal, capsule lactodil, capsule Oxin Forte and syrup corry and that the said insignia was owned by them; that the insignia was printed on the packing foils as well as on packing boxes in the case of capsules and on labels as well as on the packing boxes in case of bottle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identity of that person. 4.2 The learned DR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Grasim Industries Ltd. reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.) and drew our attention to the following findings therein: "It not necessary that the name or the writing must always be a brand name or trade name in the sense that it is normally understood. The exemption is only to such parties who do not associate their products with some other person. Of course this being a Notification under the Excise Act, the connection must be of such nature that it reflects on the aspect of manufacture and deal with quality of the products." 4.3 The learned DR submits that in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ximos-L/30 MI Cap. Lactodil, Cap. Oxin Forte, Syrup Cory, Syrup Chestal and dry Syrup Oysimox-L are names for the products and not for the "house" that is the manufacturing firm; the name "OYSTER" alone may represent the house name/house mark. However, the other names in the packing/label, in our considered opinion, do not represent the house mark but show the link between the product and the marketing firms as the said names are being used along with the names and logo/monogram of the marketing companies. In view of the above, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. relating to interpretation of Notification No. 5/98 is relevant to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has prescrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
