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

2011 (6) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and are being disposed of by this common order. The respondent M/s. Raviera Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. are the manufacturers of different medicines classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the product manufactured by said respondents were being cleared in blister packing bearing logo namely Amedac, Vigil and Penguin which belong to other persons namely M/s. Amedac Laboratories, Jalandhar, M/s. Penguin Organics (P) Ltd., Jalandhar and M/s. Vigil Remedies (P) Ltd., Jalandhar respectively, while availing the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/1998-C.E., dated 2nd June, 1998, 8/1999-C.E., dated 1st March, 1999, 8/2000-C.E., dated 1st March 2000, 8/2001-C.E., dated 1st March .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had held that the fact that the respondents M/s. Raviera Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. had used the brand name of other persons namely M/s. Amedac Laboratories, M/s. Vigil Remedies (P) Ltd. and M/s. Penguin Organics (P) Ltd. was clearly established and, therefore, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of C.C.E., Chandigarh-I v. Mahaan Dairies - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) and C.C.E., Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), the respondents were not entitled for availing the benefit of SSI exemption under the said notification and other respondents having marketed the said product in connivance with the M/s. Raviera Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ary, 2003, whereas the notice was issued on 20th June, 2003 and there was no justification for invocation of extended period of limitation. On this ground, according to the learned advocate, there is no substance in the claim of the department. He, further submitted that the respondents had also challenged the order of the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the price charged by the respondents from the buyers was cum-duty price and the duty demanded was required to be abated from the amount of demand, bearing in mind, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of C.C.E. v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1999 (108) E. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ukmani Pakkwell Traders case that it makes no difference whether the goods on which the trade mark is used are the same in respect of which the trade mark is registered and even if the goods are different so long as the trade name and brand name of another company is used, the benefit of such notification cannot be availed. Besides, once a trade name or brand name of another use is used, then mere use of additional words would not enable the party to claim the benefit of notification. Further in Mahaan Dairies, the Apex Court has ruled that in order to claim the benefit of such notification, party has to strictly comply with the terms and conditions of notification. 7. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Amit Engg. Works, the benefit of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Being so, there is no substance in the point sought to be raised relating to bar of limitation. 10. As regards the issue relating to cum-duty price undoubtedly though no cross-objections appear to have been filed, the fact remains that said ground was specifically raised by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, since the order of the Adjudicating Authority was set aside on main ground, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no occasion to deal with the said issue. Bearing the same in mind, though we do not find cross-objection having been filed on record, but it is sought to be contended that they were forwarded under speed post, taking into consideration of these aspects, in our considered opinion, it would be appropriat .....

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