9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture. It is contended is that the words "M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd." are neither a brand name nor a trade name. It is contended that mere use of the name of a company does not amount to using a brand name or trade name of some other company - the facts of the case is entirely different, and not applicable for the present case. The decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-III Versus PAUL AQUOMIN & FOOD (P) LTD [2009 (6) TMI 299 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] covers similar issue and is relied upon where it was held that it is not necessary that the name or the writing must always be a brand name or a trade name in the sense that it is normally understood. The exemption is only to such parties who do not associate their products with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturing the branded goods of the other. Consequently, the benefit of SSI exemption of Notification No.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005 sought to be denied and the duty demand confirmed alognwth interest and equivalent of penalty was imposed. Aggrieved with the said order, the appeal is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of West Bengal Chemical Industries Ltd.-2006 (200) ELT 68 (Tri.-Kolkata). 4. On the other hand, learned AR relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd.-2005 (183) ELT 123 (SC) to deny the benefit of exemption Notification No.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005. 5. Heard both sides and considered the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured carrying an exactly similar label which indicated marketed by Mother Dairy. In this case, the Tribunal has come to a considered decision that the relief was rightly allowed by Lower Appellate Authority and consequently rejected the Department's appeal. While doing so, the Tribunal recorded as follows : The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed that what is mentioned in the label is the name of the marketing agent namely, 'Mother Dairy', and it is also clearly spelt out in the label by the wordings- marketed by Mother Dairy , and as such, these words cannot be considered as making use of a Brand Name. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed in the impugned order that no consumer asks for m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Dant Manjan which was manufactured in the name and style of M.D.H. and the brand name was admittedly owned by M/s. Mahashiyan Di Hatti Pvt. Ltd. and not by the appellants in that case. Hence, the case of Super Delicacies (supra) is clearly different from the present case since in the present case the impugned goods are not being manufactured under the name and style or another brand but there is only a mere indication that the goods are being marketed by Motner Dairy. The Id. SDR also cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd (supra). We find that this decision also does not support the Revenue's case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the said case as follows : It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufactured by the assessee herein. I have also carefully examined the case records and the arguments advanced by the learned J.D.R. for the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order has observed that what is mentioned in the label is the name of the marketing agent namely, 'Mother Dairy', and it is also clearly spelt out in the label by the wordings - marketed by Mother Dairy , and as such these, words cannot be considered as making use of a Brand Name. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed in the impugned Order that no consumer asks for 'Mother Dairy' when he or she wants to buy Mineral Water by referring to a specific brand - 'Aquafina' or Kinley' or 'Bisleri'. I also find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
