9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law : "Whether the learned Tribunal had committed any error by imposing/confirming the penalty imposed on the appellant notwithstanding the fact that the exemption claimed by the appellants was based on a bona fide interpretation and application of the exemption notification ?" 2. The appellant is a private limited company having its small scale industry unit at Urla, Raipur. It is manufacturing biscuits in the brand name of "Priya Glucose V". Its turnover during 1996-97 was Rs. 2,14,405/-. Since they did not cross the limit of Rs. 30 lacs in 1997-98, as envisages under Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-1997 (Annexure A/3), they did not apply for registration under the Central Excise Law. They were served with the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that their brand name is "Priya Glucose V" and not "Priya" of M/s Priya Food Products. For once, even if it is conceded that they are using the same brand name, then the only beneficiary will be M/s. Priya Bakers and no way it will benefit M/s. Priya Food Products. Further the show cause notice itself alleges that M/s. Priya Bakers are not formally authorized to use the brand name "Priya". Thus it will be a long drawn conclusion to say that they are using the brand name of M/s. Priya Food Products. Using another's brand name means that the user must either be paying royalty to brand owner or they must be manufacturing the goods for the brand owner. The show cause notice fails to prove any of these. Therefore, the value of clearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctured by other manufacturers, have recorded a finding of fact that "Priya" is written in the same way as written on the goods manufactured by M/s. Priya Food Products Ltd. The CESTAT, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh-I v. Mahaan Dairies - (2004) 11 SCC 798 = 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) held that in such circumstances, the manufacture is not entitled for benefit of exemption of notification. The above view has been further reiterated by the Supreme Court in the matters of CCE, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - (2004) 11 SCC 801 and Unison Electronics Private Limited and Another v. CCE, Noida - (2009) 4 SCC 647 = 2009 (235) E.L.T. 206 (S.C.). 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or consideration before the Supreme Court in the matters of Unison Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments have been reiterated in paras 8 to 10 of the judgment. The facts of the above cited cases are substantially similar to the facts of the present case.
12. Thus, in view of the above well-settled principles of law, we are of the opinion that the learned CESTAT has not committing any illegality of infirmity in imposing/confirming penalty on the appellant and denying the benefit of exemption notification to the appellant. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and decide the issue in favour of the respondent-department and against the appellant-assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
