9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts are that the appellants No. 1 2 manufacture P P medicines. They avail small scale exemption under notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. The Commissioner Central Excise, under the impugned order, has denied the benefit of notification No. 1/93 as they were affixing the brand name Swift on the goods manufactured by them. According to the findings of the Commissioner the word Swift was a specially invented word as letters F T were incorporated with special motive and purpose; that the entire production of both the appellants was sold to M/s. Ind-Swift Ltd., appellants No. 3, who had also been using similar word swift on their product and that the swift is the brand name owned by appellants No. 3. 3. Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 1148 (T)]. The learned Advocate also mentioned that demand of duty and imposition of penalty is also not sustainable as the department has not brought any material on record to prove that the word swift is the brand name of Ind-swift; that the onus is on the Revenue to prove that word swift is registered and is used as brand name by Ind-swift specially when Ind-swift had different brand names registered in their name; that further there is no material to show that Ind-swift has been using the word swift before the appellants No. 1 2 started using the same word; that in fact; appellants No. 1 2 have been using word swift since 1984, before Ind-swift came into existence. He relied upon the decision in the case of Kalinga Cable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed as fair. He emphasised that it is thus apparent that swift is not House mark and it should be construed as a brand name. He finally submitted that appellants No. 1 2 had not disclosed the fact of affixing the brand name of another person and hence extended period of limition is invokable as the material fact was suppressed from the department. In reply the learned Advocate submitted that too many inferences have been drawn by the learned DR in his submissions; that according to the learned D.R., as the word swift is affixed by all the appellants it is not a house mark and from this he has drawn an inference that it is a brand name. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Para 4 of notification No. 1/93 provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
