TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993. Consequently, a demand was made of Rs. 6,19,464/- on the branded goods. Detailed reply had been filed contending that goods manufactured were not of Decon , trade name belonging to another and that brand name Decon belonged to the firm itself. This contention of the appellant was negatived by Order-in-Original No. 77/96 dated 26-8-1996. By that Order, ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand made in the show cause notice and on account of the difference in the stock a further duty amounting to Rs. 68,634/- was also imposed. Invoking the provisions contained in Rule 173Q of the Rules penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also imposed on the appellant. Shri Livinder Singh, Partner of the firm was found guil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Strebor Designs with the Trade Mark Decon will be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993. If the manufacturer, namely, M/s. Strebor Designs is the owner of Trade Mark Decon , it is common case that they are entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 1/93. Therefore a short question is whether M/s. Strebor Designs are the owners of Trade Mark at all. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that over and above the goods manufactured by M/s. Strebor Designs, the Company led by Shri Livinder Singh who was marketing the goods have goods manufactured by other manufacturers. He sold the same without affixing the Trade Mark "Decon''. In other words, no other product marketed by Shri Livinder Singh, a Propri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shara Trading Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 499 (T) followed 2. CCE v. Begen Industries - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 213 (T) 3. CCE v. ESBI Transmissions P. Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 292 (Cal.). 4. CCE v. Rajdhani Plywood Ind. P. Ltd.- 2001 (135) E.L.T. 91 (Tri.) = 2000 (36) RLT 892 (T) Ld. Commissioner states that the decision of this Tribunal in opus India stands overruled by the decision of the Madras High Court in Kali Aerated Works v. U.O.I. 1995 (76) E.L.T. 265 and Bell Products v. Union of India, 1995 (78) E.L.T. 404. In the first case there was no assignment of the Trade Mark in favour of the firm which claimed the benefit of Notification 175/86. There was only a mutual arrangement between the ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods found short on stock taking. We do not find any ground to interfere with the shortage in stock found by the authorities. Since we find that appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93, the liability of duty on the shortage found has to he recomputed. For the said purpose the matter will go back to the concerned Commissioner. In view of what has been stated above, except the liability of the appellant to pay duty on the shortage of stock found by the authority, which is to be refixed with notice to the appellant, the impugned order is quashed. At the time of filing the appeal, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs in terms of provisions contained in Section 35F of the Act. Appellant has in fact de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|