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

2009 (5) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment Limited are the manufacturers of cement which is an excisable commodity. They availed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002 as amended (Sl. No. 19). In terms of the condition No. 2(iii) stipulated in the said Notification, exemption was not applicable to the item viz., cement cleared with the brand name or trade name of another person. They were affixing words RAMCO PRODUCT in the local language viz., in Kannada on the HDPE bags which were used to pack the cements and they were selling the cement manufactured by them under their own Trade Mark KARTHIC . Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that the use of the words RAMCO PRODUCT would not entitle them to the benefit of the Notification in view of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eir product is equivalent to that of Ramco Group of Industries. The assessee submitted that they used only their brand name KARTHIC but the Commissioner has stated that it is immaterial whether or not the assessee have been using the brand name KARTHIC and what is relevant and needs to be analyzed is whether they are using the brand name of other person or not. He has held that by writing RAMCO PRODUCT on the HDPE bags of cement, the appellant had used the brand name of others. He has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Trichy v. M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra). In these circumstances, the Commissioner confirmed, the following demands and imposed penalties under Rule 25. Interest was also demanded und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 1-3-2002 was claimed and allowed in the past. The word RAMCO is an integral part of their registered brand name and hence, a contradictory view cannot be taken merely for the reason that concessional rate was claimed for KARTHIC brand. (v) The valued customers in Karnataka are familiar with RAMCO CEMENT and KARTHIC being a brand name of the appellants, it was believed that the customers may be misled to conclude that KARTHIC brand name is from a different manufacturer and hence, they were required to print the words RAMCO PRODUCT in local language. The printing of the above words on the HDPE bags in Kannada language is more to emphasis and reassure their customers that the KARTHIC brand cement is that of the appellants. ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the Apex Court held that there was intention of indicating a connection between the product i.e., cement and Grasim Industries. As a consequence, the Apex Court concluded that the respondents used the trade name of other company with the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the product and that person. In the present case, the brand name as declared to the Trade Authorities is also owned by the appellants and therefore, the clearance of cement under the brand name KARTHIC was fully in accordance with conditions stipulated in the Notification No. 6/2002. (ix) The imposition of penalty under Rule 25 to the differential duty is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside. The affixing of brand name and inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also been submitted that Ramco Industries manufacturing asbestos was established much later. It is obligatory on the part of the revenue to have shown that Ramco is indeed the brand name of another person with proper evidences. The appellants have produced evidence to show that the said brand name Ramco belongs to them. When this is the factual position, the appellants would not be violating the conditions of the said Notification. The finding of the Commissioner that they used the brand name of other, is not correct in the light of the submissions made by the appellants. The facts in the case of CCE v. M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) are distinguishable. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the impugned orders. Therefor .....

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