9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has relied on the affidavits filed by the assessee from the six customer companies, who are the dealers in the welding electrodes supplied by the assessee to the effect that the brand names Coastweld, Balaji, Polarc, Dolphin, Sreearc, Uttararc, Rigweld affixed on the welding electrodes do not belong to them and that these belong only to the assessees . He has also held that the department has not been able to establish by concrete evidence that the brand names are of the customer companies/dealers. Therefore, he accepted the assessees submission that the brand names affixed on the items manufactured by them belonged to them and hence there was no bar under para 4 of Notification 01/1993, dated 28-2-1993 and on that ground set aside the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t admitted that the brand name belonged to the dealers. They had only stated that the brand name was affixed to each item supplied to each dealer. However, the other dealers were also supplied with the items of other brand name and there was no specific supply to one dealer only. It was also submitted that both the units - M/s. Balaji Electrodes and M/s. Coastal Electrodes are independent and separate units with separate location and they are not dependent on each other for any process, raw materials or for marketing and hence, the value of clearances of M/s. Coastal Electrodes cannot be added to the turnover of the respondents. Learned Counsel further submitted that both the units being independent under the SSI Notifications and that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the customers. The customers have filed their own affidavits as stated by the Commissioner, to dis-own the brand names. In that circumstance, the citation relied by the SDR does not apply to the facts of the case. In the rulings of the Apex Court cited by the learned SDR, the brand name was admittedly owned by another person, while in the present case, the brand name is owned by the respondents themselves and not owned by any other person. Therefore, the Larger Bench s decision relied by the learned Counsel in the case of CCE v. Fine Industries applies to the facts of this case. In the CCE v. Fine Industries case, the Tribunal took the view that it was for the Revenue to have established that the brand name belonged to another person, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
