9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - Appeal No. 1992 of 2006-Ex[DB] - ORDER NO . FO/A/57389 /2013-Ex(Br) - Dated:- 7-8-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Manmohan Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J. P. Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms. Shweta Bector, AR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa(for the Bench): After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate and Ms. Shweta Bector, learned AR, we find that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Centrifugal submersible pumps and Centrifugal pumps falling under Chapter 84 of the First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said pumps were being manufactured by the appellants in a brand name Prince . Investigation conducted by the Revenue reveal that said br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that though the demand stands raised within the limitation period, keeping in view that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to avail undue benefit by endorsing his product with the brand name of other person, even the demand within the limitation period would not survive. For the above proposition, learned advocate relies upon the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Bhalla Enterprises reported as [2004 (173) ELT 225 (SC)]. He also refers to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Vetcare Organics P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore [2004 (174) ELT 337 (Tri-Bang)]. 4. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by M/s. Kalsi Engineeers in the brand name of Prince cannot be held to be a reflecting upon their bonafide intention. Appellant being in the same business is expected to know about the ownership of the brand name, which they are putting on the goods manufactured by them. As such, we are of the view that there is intention on the part of the appellants to use the brand name Prince which belonged to M/s. Kalsi Engineeers. 6. In view of the foregoing facts, the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Bhalla Enterprises or in the in the case of Vetcare Organics P. Ltd. relied upon by the learned advocate are not applicable. In any case, we find that in the case of Bhalla Enterprises, brand names were being used by cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
