Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (5) TMI 561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Orders-in-Original by which duty demand of Rs. 75,80,219/- (Appeal No. E/134/06) and Rs. 60,30,362/- (Appeal No. H/135/06) were confirmed. 2. The issue involved in both the matter was whether the appellants had to fulfil the conditions laid down in the Notification Nos. 5/1999, dated 28-2-99 and 6/2000-CE dated 1st March, 2003. The contentions which have been raised on behalf of the applicant by the ld. Sr. Advocate revolved around conditions (iii) (b) which is reproduced hereunder :- "(b) Cement bearing a Brand name or Trade Name (whether registered or not) of another person. Explanation : For the purpose of condition (ii) 'brand name' or 'trade name' meant a brand name or trade name whether or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... language and would not have understood the writing, "subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd.", which appeared on the bags of cement manufactured by the applicant. The learned counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in their own case and pointed out from Paragraphs 4 and 13 of the judgment that, it was recorded therein that it was not denied by the present applications that the purpose of putting the name "M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd." was to show a connection between the product and M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. 4. It appears from the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) that it was contended before the Apex Court that the orders M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. were neither brand name n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner (Appeals), who has considered them in the impugned order made in Appeal No. E/135/06. On our own consideration, we find that the said writing "subsidiary of Grasim Industries" was clearly indicative of the connection between the product of this subsidiary company and the Grasim Industries Limited which was the holding company. There is no dispute over the fact that Grasim Industries Limited also manufactured cement. Therefore, when its name was associated by the subsidiary company by writing it on the bags containing cement manufactured by it, there would be obvious intention of showing that the quality of the product manufactured by the subsidiary company was comparable with that of the product of the holding company, namely, G .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates