9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and pickles and Shri Ashok C Jain and Shri Ravindra C. Jain are partners in the firm. They started manufacturing spices and pickles from February, 1998 onwards and they marketed their goods under the brand name "RAVI". As the turnover was below the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs / 50 lakhs at the relevant time, they had enjoyed benefit of small-scale exemption vide Notification No. 16/97-CE dated 01/04/1997 and 8/98-CE dated 02/06/1998 as amended. The department was of the view that the brand "RAVI MASALE" belonged to Shri Phulchand Jain, proprietor of Jain Gruh Udyog and, therefore, M/s. Jain Spices and Agro Products have manufactured the excisable goods, namely, pickles and spices, bearing the brand name of another person and hence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The department is in appeal before us against the impugned order. 3. The department's contention is that as per the statement given by Shri R.C. Jain, the brand name belongs to M/s. Jain Gruh Udyog and not to the respondents and therefore, the respondents are using the brand name of another person. Therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of small-scale exemption. The department also relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai vs. Kali Aerated Water Works 2005 (190) ELT 475 (Tri.-Chennai) and also the judgment of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Mahaan Dairies 2004 (166) ELT 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the use of the brand name and ownership are distinct and different. However, the facts obtaining in the present case are different. In the instant case, as per the Memorandum of Understanding which relates to joint ownership of brand "RAVI MASALE", all the five members of the family are joint owners of the brand name "RAVI MASALE" and each one of them could use the brand name in their own manufacturing and trading activities. Hence the ratio of the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the department is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department. (Operative part p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
