9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeals had a long history and there was substantial delay because the file was transferred from Delhi to Chennai and thereafter Chennai to Bangalore and somewhere the file was lost and was reconstructed. He submits that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chromatographic equipments/instruments/high performance liquid chromotographs falling under 9027.00 of CETA, 1985. The appellants were registered as an SSI unit and availing the Notification No.175/1986 dated 1.3.1986 as amended. Four show-cause notices were issued to the appellants during the period from 1990-1992 taking a view that appellants were affixing the brand name 'waters' which was the brand name used by M/s. Milipore Corporation, USA on similar goods manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ser would associate the product with 'waters USA' when he purchases from the appellant. No evidence has been gathered to support the case of the Revenue from any of the customers or from the market. Therefore on this ground, we are unable to come to any conclusion in favour of Revenue. 3. The second submission made by the learned counsel is that the Commissioner (A) has himself accepted that the appellants are joint owners of the brand name. It was the assertion of the appellant that according to the agreement they are joint owners. No contrary finding has been recorded. Instead a conclusion has been reached that appellants have not disputed that the brand name is of a foreign person. We find from the orders of the lower authorities that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a point has not been taken up in show-cause notice. The decisions are Cora Ltd.: 1997 (94) E.L.T. 566 (Tri.); Reckitt & Coleman of India Ltd.: 1996 (88) E.L.T. 641 (SC) and Commissioner vs. Champdany Industries Ltd.: 2009 (241) E.L.T. 481 (SC). Secondly, it was also submitted by the learned counsel that the onus of proof to show that the brand name belongs to another person is on the Department and we have already observed that the claim of the appellant that appellants are joint owners has not been contested and further there is no evidence produced to show that the brand name was owned by M/s. Millipore Corporation as alleged in the show-cause notice. 4. The discussions above would show that no case has been made out against the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
