9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case of the Revenue is not only based on the statements. There were physical seizure and independent corroboration including statements of the customers and the bills which covered the clearances. The impugned order examined all these issues in detail. The learned Commissioner examined all the evidences and came to the conclusion that the appellants have cleared during the impugned period goods with brand name which was not owned by them and as such are liable to Central Excise duty as SSI exemption will not be available to them. We find in the present appeal, the appellant is not able to bring in any point for consideration to interfere with the impugned order. Regarding the communication received from Trade Marks Registry, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 1/1993-CE (NT) dated 28/3/1993, as amended. The exemption under the said notification shall not apply in respect of goods bearing at brand name or a trade name [registered or not, of another person]. The proceedings concluded in order-in-original dated 16/3/1998. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 6/1/2000 dismissed the appeal for failure to pre-deposit, the duty and penalty. On further appeal, the Tribunal vide final order No. E/A/395/2000-NB dated 31/3/2000 remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order-in-appeal dated 18/11/2004 set aside the original order dated 16/3/1998 and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for a denovo consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistry with reference to two brand names National and Goodwill . The Trade Mark Registry in their communication stated that the said marks, prima facie, inherently not capable of distinguishing the goods/ services mentioned in the request within the meaning of Section 9 of Trade Marks Act, 1999. The learned Counsel pleaded that it is clear that these names cannot be considered as Trade Marks or brand names. 4. The learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the metal seals found in the premises of appellant s unit were having different brand names belonging to other persons. The seizure of various machined pieces with markings of other persons brand name clearly show that the appellants are engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identify of that person . 6. The Managing Director of the appellant company had confirmed that they have been clearing hubs and drums which is further confirmed from the balance sheet for the relevant period. The fact has been confirmed further by the statement of the Production Supervisor. These were corroborated by the customers who purchased these finished branded goods. The affidavits of retraction filed after almost 1= years are clearly an afterthought. The case of the Revenue is not only based on the statements. There were physical seizure and independent corroboration including statements of the customers and the bills which covered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
