9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidering the fact that the appeal relates to the year 2005 wherein the matter relates to the period from 1-6-1997 to 7-6-2002, we do not find this to be a fit case for adjournment. Besides, no cogent ground is disclosed for adjournment. Hence, the application for adjournment is rejected. 2. Upon hearing the learned D.R. and perusal of the record with the assistance of the learned D.R., it is seen that the appellants are challenging the order dated 15-2-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing their appeal against the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 3. The Additional Commissioner, Chandigarh by his order dated 10-10-2003 had dropped the proceedings which were sought to be initiated by issuing show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said notification while using the brand name 'SANT' on the goods manufactured by them but belonging to M/s. Sant Valves Pvt. Ltd., Jullundhar. It is their case that from the period 1st June, 1997 to 7th June, 2002, the respondents manufactured and cleared Pipe Fittings bearing the brand name 'SANT' valued at ₹ 81,82,408/- involving excise duty of ₹ 12,75,239/- in respect of Pipe fittings. It is their further case that Pipe fittings numbering 2130 bearing brand name SANT VALUED AT ₹ 13,666/- were seized on 7th June, 2002 from the factory premises of the respondents. It was thereafter the said show cause notice came to be issued and the proceedings were conducted. 6. Learned DR drawing our attention to the materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not only established by the materials on record but, in fact, were not disputed by the respondents. Their contention was only to the effect that the product manufactured by the respondents were different from the products for which brand name was registered in favour of M/s. Sant Valves Pvt. Ltd. and that subsequently the respondents had obtained registration in their favour as Sant. 8. As has already been pointed out above both the authorities below have dismissed the proceedings in favour of the assessees essentially on the ground that the product manufactured by the respondents is Pipe fittings whereas the product for which brand name stood registered in favour of M/s. Sant Valves Pvt. Ltd. was totally different one. The Apex Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng which period undisputedly the brand name 'SANT' was registered only in favour of M/s. Sant Valves Pvt. Ltd. and not in favour of the respondents. Besides, even as per the registration granted in favour of the respondents on 25-1-2005, it relates to the word Sant and not the word 'SANT'. 10. The reliance placed by the lower authorities in the decision of the Tribunal cannot be of any help to the respondents as the law on the point being settled by the Apex Court. In Mahaan Dairies case (supra) the Apex Court while reiterating their decision in Rukmani Pakkwell Traders case has held that it is settled law that in order to claim the benefit of notification, a party must strictly comply with the terms of the notification. If on wording ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
