9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wner of the brand name. M/s. Prakash Gramodyog Ltd. is clearing the goods i.e. detergent powder under the brand name shaving plus which is belonged to M/s. Corona Plus Industries Ltd. M/s. Prakash Gramodyog Ltd. contested the show cause notices on the ground that they are owner of the brand name as they are manufacturing different goods than the goods manufactured by M/s. Corona Plus Industries Ltd. The adjudicating authority held that M/s. Prakash Gramodyog is the owner of the brand name and dropped the demand. However, an appeal filed by Revenue the Tribunal (CEGAT), now CESTAT held that the brand name does not belong to M/s. Prakash Gramodyog and confirmed the demand which relates to normal period of limitation. Against this order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d name shaving plus whereas M/s. Corona Plus Industries manufacturing detergent cakes and the issue in respect of brand name on the different goods is decided by the Larger Bench in the case CCE v. Fine Industries reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 53 and on appeal filed by the Revenue ultimately Hon ble Supreme Court settled this issue reported as 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481, therefore, during the period June to October 1997, it cannot be held that appellants were clearing the goods with the brand name of another person with intent to evade payment of duty, therefore, the demand is time-barred. 6. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellant after the start of investigation of present proceedings applied for registration of the trade mark in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Tribunal held that the trade mark is in respect of the goods and if a manufacturer is manufacturing different goods under the same trade mark the manufacturer is entitled for the benefit of SSI notification. Ultimately, this view was set aside by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Fine Industries (supra). In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellant availed the benefit of notification with intent to evade payment of duty, therefore, the demand for the period June to October, 1997 is time-barred, hence set aside. In view of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by M/s. Prakash Gramodyog are allowed. (Dictated pronounced in open Court on 3-1-2006) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
