9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question would not apply - This reasoning of the CEGAT is contrary to the law laid down by this court in 'Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore' [2005 (8) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Value of the goods meant for “HM”, “PAL”, “KH”, etc. could not have been included while considering as to whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Notification or not. Once that is excluded and the case is confined to the brand name 'VIR' which is the appellant's own brand name and in respect of which the appellant had claimed exemption, the value of goods cleared in the previous year was less than ₹ 3 crores. Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled to the exemption under the said Notification. - Decided in favoru of assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 2609 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman,JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Neeru Vaid For the Respondent : Mr. B. Krishna Prasad JUDGMENT A. K. SIKRI, J. The appellant herein was engaged in the manufacture of certain articles from vulcanized rubber as bushes for use in the motor vehicles. Indubitably, the appellant is a Sma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT'). Rejecting the aforesaid contention of the assessee and accepting the plea of the Department, the CEGAT has gone by the definition of brand name or trade name contained in para 4 of the aforesaid Notification and reads as under: - 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person, except in the following cases: - (a) where such specified goods, being in the nature of components or parts of any machinery or equipment or appliances, are cleared for use as original equipment in the manufacture of the said machinery or equipment or appliances by following the procedure laid down in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Provided that manufacturers, whose aggregate value of clearances for home consumption of such specified goods for use as original equipment does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs in a financial year as calculated in the manner specified in the said Table, may submit a declaration regarding such use instead of following the procedure laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in number of judgments. In a recent judgment dated 11.03.2015 pronounced by this very Bench in the case of 'Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/s. Tubes Structurals and Another' [Civil Appeal Nos. 7955-7956 of 2003], after taking note of two earlier judgments of this court, the issue was dealt with as under: - This issue, on the facts of the present case as noted above, is no more res integra and has been settled by few judgments of this Court. It is not necessary to refer to all those judgments. Our purpose would be served in mentioning the judgment titled Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II v. Australian Foods India (P) Ltd. (2013) 287 E.L.T. 385 (SC). In the said case the Court took note of the original para 4 in Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.1993 where the words mentioned are the exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person. This para 4 was amended vide Notification No. 59/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 and the word affixes was substituted by the word bearing . The reason for this substitution is explained in para (iii) of para J of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SI unit, exemption is not available, it would lead to inevitable result that the value of such goods cannot be added as well, while considering the value of the goods cleared by the assessee in the previous year. We, however, find that the CEGAT has given two other reasons to deny the relief to the appellant. In its order it has observed that letters such as HM and PAL , no doubt, were initials of the buyers of the goods and they constitute the brand name as well, however, what was indicated was only initials with the sole purpose to identify the goods for particular automobile company. After the supply of these goods, the said automobile companies were affixing their proper trade mark/ brand name thereupon. On this basis, it is mentioned that the Notification in question would not apply. This reasoning of the CEGAT is contrary to the law laid down by this court in 'Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore' [(2005) 7 SCC 528]. This very argument was repelled by the court in the following words: However, the words used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
