9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.175/86, dated 1.3.1986. Symbol/brand name, extracted above, shows that the word MARUTI has been used along with the word COX . From a reading of the above explanation, what is required to be established is that by usage of such symbol/brand name, there should be a connection with the brand name of some other person. In the case on hand, the usage of the symbol/brand name of MARUTI is apparent. Mere absence of the letters MARUTI in Devanagari, as used by M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd., does not make the case of the appellant any better as the explanation provides for such interpretation in respect of use of name or mark such as symbol, monogram, labels, etc., which show indication in respect of the specified goods, which we find is apparent in the case on hand. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the department's contention that the benefit of notification will not be available in respect of hub caps and show caps bearing the symbol/brand name MARUTI . - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A.No.3041 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. A. Thiyagarajan Senior Counsel for M/s. Ramesh Kumar For the Respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 986, as amended, and consequently, duty and penalty were sought to be imposed, apart from proposing confiscation of goods. 3.4.1. The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the statement of the appellant, the reply of the department and the legal contentions, and on comparing Hub Caps supplied by M/s.Premier Automobiles Ltd. to its dealers with the samples seized from the appellant, found that the symbol/brand name PAL embossed on the parts manufactured by M/s.Premier Automobiles Ltd are identical to the symbol/brand name affixed on the goods manufactured by the appellant and accordingly, denied exemption under Notification No.175/86, dated 1.3.1986 3.4.2. Similarly, the Hub Caps manufactured by the assessee affixed with the symbol/brand name SUZUKI were also compared by the Adjudicating Authority with the goods manufactured by M/s.Maruti Udyod (P) Ltd. and were found to be identical and, therefore, the invoking Explanation VIII to Paragraph (7) of the Notification No.175/86, dated 1.3.1986, as amended, the exemption was denied. 3.4.3. Insofar as Hub Caps and Show Caps manufactured by the appellant with the brand name MARUTI , the Adjudicating Authority compared the sym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, we hold that the learned lower authority was in error in not invoking the provisions of para 7 in respect of the items in question. We, therefore allow the appeal of the revenue by setting aside the order of the Learned Lower Authority in this regard. 3.7. Thereafter, an application was filed by the department stating that consequent to the allowing of the appeal filed by the department, the Tribunal has not quantified the demand. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.8.1998 made in Misc.Order No.528 of 1998, allowed the said application by way of remand and directed the Original Authority to re-adjudicate the demands raised in the show cause notice in terms of the order of the Tribunal, of course after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3.8. The appellant thereafter knocked the doors of this Court in W.P.No.17834 of 1997 and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 8.3.2004, allowed the writ petition on the plea of violation of principles of natural justice and directed the Tribunal to rehear the matter. 3.9. The Tribunal, relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court, more particularly (i) CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, 2004 (165) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttom and, therefore, the two issues cannot be clubbed together. 6. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below. 7. As all the questions of law are intertwined, they are dealt with together. 8. The plea of the appellant does not merit consideration for the simple reason that the original order is composed of three components. The first two components are in relation to the use of the brand names PAL and SUZUKI , against which an appeal was filed by the appellant and that challenge was dismissed by the Tribunal confirming the finding of the Collector of Central Excise. With regard to the third component, namely, goods cleared with the brand name containing the word COX at the top and the word MARUTI at the bottom, the Revenue has chosen to file an appeal against that portion of the order of the Collector of Central Excise whereby benefit of exemption under Notification No.175/86, dated 1.3.1986 was given to the appellant and that appeal of the Revenue was allowed and the Tribunal held that the appellant herein is ineligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.175/86, dated 1.3.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
