9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and documentary relied upon by the lower adjudicating authority that there was a trade nexus between the impugned goods manufactured by the appellants and M/s. K.S. Valves Forgings, Jalandhar. Therefore, the lower authority is correct by not extending the benefits of exemption, which was hit by limitation of para (4) read with explanation IX to Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 as amended. I do not find any merits in the appeal to disturb the impugned orders of the lower authority. Accordingly, I uphold the same. Being aggrived by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sanitary fittings. An information was receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department has not brought on record any evidence to prove that as to who was registered or otherwise owner of the brand name COX . She submits that nowhere it has been brought on record that the particular owner of the brand name COX was not eligible to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. She submits that the appellants sell their goods sometime without any brand name. She submits that the goods are sometimes sold under the brand name Tulsi . She submits that M/s. K.S. Valves Forgings used the brand name COX for short period of time and only in respect of the goods supplied to the Government department which were of value of around Rs. 1.5 lakhs. She submits that for denying the benefit under Notification No. 1/93, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of Kalinga Cable Co. v. CCE [1999 (111) E.L.T. 190 (T) = 2000 (88) ECR 898]. 5. Ld. Counsel submits that an alternative plea of the appellants is that even if the brand name belongs to M/s. K.S. Valves Forgings, the benefit of exemption would be admissible to M/s. K.S. Valves Forgings as a SSI unit. She submits that even on this pretext, the benefit of notification cannot be denied to the appellants. 6. Ld. Advocate submits that the goods lying in the factory premises cannot be confiscated. She submits that since the appellants had not contravened any of the provisions of Central Excise Rules and, therefore penalty was not warranted in this case. She therefore prays that the appeal may be allowed. 7. Shri Ashok Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in the instant case that some of goods were embossed with the word COX . The indications were that COX was the registered trade mark of somebody. Since the appellants were claiming the benefit of Notification No. 1/93, therefore it was necessary for them to prove that it was not the trade mark of somebody who was not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. It was also found that some other persons were using this brand name. When questioned about the brand name, it was admitted by Shri Rakesh Kumar that they were not aware that the use of brand name of somebody else was the offence under the Central Excise Law. All these facts lead us to believe that COX was the registered brand name. Since the appellants wanted to avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
