9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on both appellants. There is no dispute as to the fact that these readymade garments were of brand Rusty Soul and Woods & Woods . As already held hereinabove, these branded readymade garments are not liable to duty by virtue of benefit of N/N. 12/01; accordingly the confiscation is set aside, and it is held that these readymade garments are not liable for confiscation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1147 & 1148/05-Mum - A/85985-85986/17/EB - Dated:- 22-2-2017 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri V.S. Sejpal, Advocate for the appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, AC(AR) for the respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. BR/09/M-IV/2005 dated 31.01.2005. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration after filtering out unnecessary details, are that the main appellant M/s. Parit Enterprises (hereinafter referred as PE) were getting their readymade garments manufactured from job workers and clearing the same. The period involved in the case in hand is 2001-02 and 2002-03, it is the case of revenue that the said PE had cleared the ready ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards the confiscation of the branded goods seized, it is his submission that the appellant PE had never manufactured any branded goods and were only manufacturing unbranded and affixing labels of washing instruction and sizes of the readymade garment. It is the submission that appellant has not manufactured any branded readymade garment seized at the godown at Dadar which does not belong to them, but were belonging to Hiralal Gulabchand Co.; produced the record of stock statement of Hiralal Gulabchand Co., to authorities which were not considered in correct perspective. It is his submission that since the demand itself is unsustainable the interest thereof and penalties imposed on PE and partner/Karta be set aside. 4. Ld. DR draws our attention to the findings recorded by the first appellate authority. He would submit that it is an accepted fact as to brand names Rusty Soul Woods Woods were belonging to Hiralal Gulabchand Co., a proprietary concern and it is also proved from the Registrar of Trade Marks. It is his submission that once the brand belongs to some other person, benefit of notification 8/2001 as amended will not be available so as also the benefit of not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fare applied for registration but not yet registered under the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958. Therefore is not liable for registration of Central Excise. 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced letter of Hiralal Gulabchand Co. that in March 2001 they had recorded that they had applied for registration and not yet registered with the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958. Revenue authorities in the show-cause notice at paragraph 5 has recorded as under:- 5. Enquiries were conducted with the Registry of Trade Marks in respect of brands like 'Jeanagers' , Rusty Soul and Woods Woods . Registrar of Trade Marks vide his letter dated 27.03.2003 informed that all the 3 brands belonged to Shri Siddharth H. Shah (Exhibit VII, VIII, IX). Further, on the basis of investigation conducted and documents taken over, it is seen that the following brands are owned by the firms as detailed below:- Sr.No. Brand name Name of the firm Reference 1 Woods Woods M/s. Hiralal Gulabchand Co., A-1, Shah Nahar Ind.Estate, Unit no. 123, Mumbai 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts all goods other than those bearing a registered brand name or sold under a registered brand name, falling under sub-heading Nos. 6201.00 or 6202.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule. Explanation.- For the purposes of this notification, registered brand name means a brand name, registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958), that is to say, a name or a mark, such as a symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or any writing which is used in relation to a product, for the purposes of indicating, or so as to indicate, a connection in the course of trade between the product and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. The above said notification was circulated widely in form of Trade notice by the Central Excise, Mumbai IV and the trade notice reads as under:- TRADE NOTICE NO. 26/2001 DATED 15.03.2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
