9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6M, K-55T and L-22L. During the period from years 89-90 to 93-94, the appellant availed of the benefit of Notifications 175/86 and 1/93 as an SSI unit. It is the holding company of M/s. Parle Exports Ltd. (PEL). The appellant sells its product to PEL, Parle International Ltd. (PIL) and franchise bottlers of M/s. PEL. It maybe stated at the outset that the changes the appellant underwent in its transformation from M/s Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd' to M/s Parle Bisleri Pvt. Ltd' bear no significance to the outcome of this appeal. 3. M/s. PEL uses the products sold by the appellant to manufacture Non-alcoholic Beverages Base (NABB). In addition to NABB, M/s. PEL also manufactures flavours as the appellant does. During the same period mentioned above, M/s PEL enjoyed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and 1/93 for the year 92-93 and 93-94. (Oct. 93). The flavours named above are researched and developed by PEL, but were allowed to be manufactured by the appellant with the code names given by PEL. The flavours are used in the manufacture of beverages like Gold Spot, Limca, Rimzim etc. 4. Consequent upon the visit to the factory premises and office premises of Parle Group of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the flavours indicate a connection in the course of trade between the specified goods and such person using such name or mark. It is revealed during the course of investigation that the flavours in question were earlier manufactured by PEL and supplied to the franchise holders. The same flavours were later on allowed to be made by LFFL [appellant herein]. The franchise holders thereupon were buying the very same flavours from LFFL and were placing their orders by mentioning the same code name, as is evident from their purchase orders. The users of the flavours i.e. PEL PIL and specified bottlers are all interconnected. The specified bottlers are franchisees of PEL. Being the franchisees of PEL they are aware that the flavours belonged to PEL with the code names. Thus the code name indicated a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and same person using such name or mark. The defence that the code number has been given only for identification of the product cannot therefore be accepted." On this line of reasoning, the Tribunal held that the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and 1/93 for the products with code names ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be clubbed for the purposes of ascertaining the eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 1/93 CE dated 28.02.93? II. Whether the Tribunal was correct in denying the benefit of the said Notification by treating the product code name as a brand name' within the meaning of Explanation VIII to the aforestated Notifications? Since the parties to this appeal have raised arguments that are almost identical in form and substance to those submitted in the previous stages of appeal, we may dispense with a reiteration of the same to proceed directly to the decision and its reasoning. Issue I 10. In so far as the issue of clubbing the value of production/clearances is concerned, it is significant to note that it is now beyond dispute that Circular 6/92 operated concomitantly with Notification No. 175/86. The Revenue has admitted to this in its Counter-Affidavit to this appeal, and thus the only point of question is whether the operation of Circular 6/92, and consequently, the benefit of SSI exemption may be halted from the commencement of Notification No 1/93. 11. The Tribunal, in deciding this question in the affirmative, relied solely on an interpretation of the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant, which was used for purchase of raw material by the latter (As evidenced from the balance sheet). Furthermore, the flavours being manufactured by the appellant were developed by M/SPEL at their R and D Lab at Bombay, whose services were at the disposal of the appellant. They were at one point of time were manufactured by M/s. PEL and admittedly owned by them. Clearly, all this points to the inescapable conclusion that the three companies in question were intertwined in their operation and management. A careful scrutiny of the records therefore establish that both the aforesaid two basic features are overwhelmingly present in this case. Therefore it would likely seem that the purported fragmentation of the manufacturing process was but a mere ploy to avail of the SSI exemption. Piercing the corporate veil, when the notions of beneficial ownership and interdependency come into the picture, are no longer res integra. On this count, therefore, we have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming the order of the Tribunal, which was justified entirely through the precedent set by this Court. Issue II 14. The second issue concerns the question whether the code names' used to denote sof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
