9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovides that 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. So, it is to be considered as to whether the goods were cleared by the assessee bearing any brand name of other person. - in the earlier SSI exemption Notification No. 175/86, 1/93 it was specifically mentioned where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name , which are absent in the present SSI exemption notification. Admittedly, the assessee had cleared the specified goods bearing brand name of other person. - case of Kohinoor Plastics Ltd (2005 (8) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) would squarely apply in the present case. Therefore, we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the assessee and its Managing Director, denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No 9/2003-CE dtd 1.3.2003 (SSI exemption for assessee availing Cenvat Credit) on the ground that the assessee cleared their products Zip Fasteners bearing brand name of MIG, GVM and TLR belonging to M/s Madura Coats Pvt Ltd to their own central depot. 3. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 5,09,803/- short paid on goods bearing brand name of M/s Madura Coats Pvt Ltd and also ₹ 16,000/- on the goods cleared without payment of duty alongwith interest, and the amount of ₹ 16,000/- as deposited was appropriated and adjusted against the duty liability. It has confiscated the seized goods and im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iders to fix with the Zip Fasteners. Thus, the assessee have not used any brand name of others in their final products. She relied upon following decisions : a. Maharashtra Metal Industries vs CCE, Aurangabad -2003.156.ELT.399 Tri Mumbai b. CCE, Hyderabad vs Sri Industries Ltd 2006.193.ELT.438 Tri. Bang. c. Maharashtra Steels vs CCE, Aurangabad 2002.146.ELT.690 Tri.Mumbai d. Vimal Printery vs Collector of CE, Vododara 1999.110.ELT.982 5. The Ld Authorised representative for the Revenue submits that the issue is no more res integra on this issue in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Kohinoor Elastics Pvt Ltd vs CCE, Indoor 2005.188.ELT.3 (SC). 6. The Ld Advocate for the appellant attempted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or on those goods (elastic) which reach customers without any change in form. Clause 4 does not provide that the exemption will not be lost if the goods (elastic) are only used as inputs in the manufacture of other goods. Most importantly Clause 4 does not provide that exemption is not lost if the goods (elastic) are manufactured as per orders of a customer and for use only by that customer. Explanation IX nowhere detracts from this position. It is correct that the words that is to say qualify the words Brand name or Trade name . 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 trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /trade name of their customers on the elastics. They are being so affixed because the Appellants and/or the customer wants to indicate that the goods (elastic) have a connection with that customer. This is clear from the fact that the elastics on which brand/trade name of A is affixed will not and cannot be used by any person other than the person using that brand/trade name. As set out hereinabove once a brand/trade name is used in the course of trade of the manufacturer, who is indicating a connection between the goods manufactured by him and the person using the brand/trade name, the exemption is lost. In any case it cannot be forgotten that the customer wants his brand/trade name affixed on the product not for his own knowledge or inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TLR belonging to Madura Coats Pvt Ltd. The main argument of the Ld Advocate is that the slider was supplied by the Madura Coats Pvt Ltd, which was fixed in their manufactured goods. So, they have not affixed any brand name on the finished goods. We find that it is clearly evident from the record that the appellant cleared Zip fasteners with sliders, which were bearing the brand /trade name of Madura Coats Pvt Ltd. Para 4 of SSI exemption notification No 9/2003 provides that 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. So, it is to be considered as to whether the goods were cleared by the assessee bearing any brand name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
