9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Economos, Austria denies the ownership of the brand will not make any difference to the fact that brand name "Seal Jet" belongs to the Economos, Austria. At the most it can be said that Economos, Austria have not registered the name "Seal Jet" but that does not make any difference, because notification prescribed that in order to avail exemption goods should not bear the brand name of another person whether it is registered or otherwise therefore in the present case appellant have used "Seal Jet" brand which belongs to Economos, Austria. Time limitation - Held that: - matter was contentious and issue was decided by the larger bench - there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellants - therefore extended period of limitation will not apply. Penalties - Held that: - penalties imposed for the normal period shall also not be imposable for the reason that the appellant have entertained bonafide belief that in the fact of the case they are eligible for SSI exemption and accordingly there is no malafide intention - penalties for the demand commensurate to duty for normal period of the limitation set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 E/508/07 PI/354/2006 dtd. 30-11-06 15/CEX/06 Dtd. 20-6-06 SCN dtd 20-2-06 Per.: March 2005 1,10,930/- 25,000/- Rule 25 Appeals of Seal Jet India Pvt Ltd: Sr. No. Appeal No. SCN date Period of demand (beyond limitation) Amount (Rs.) OIO dated OIA dated Pre-deposit amount (Rs.) 11 E/2114/2004 02.08.2002 July 1997 June 2002 (July 1997- June 2001) 52,98,467 (44,97,466) 31.03.2004 10.04.2004 Order dated 17.04.2013 Received on 02.05.2013 30,00,000/- 25.09.2003 July 2002 January 2003 (July 2002- August 2002) 11,84,468 (3,56,993) 11.03.2004 April 2003 September 2003 10,42,318 12 E/1653/2006 01.11.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the officer below the rank of Commissioner were appealed against before the Commissioner(Appeals). However in the case of the order passed by the Commissioner appeal was filed before this Tribunal. This Tribunal in case of Seal Jet India Pvt ltd dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide order No.A/324/2330/13/EB/C-II dated 9-4-2014. The said appellant filed appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein Hon'ble High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter to the this Tribunal to determine whether the brand name Seal Jet was belonging to foreign company and also to consider the issue of limitation and penalty. Hence the appellants are before us. 2. Shri. Gajendra Jain, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant namely Seal Jet India Pvt. Ltd. He submits that Seal Jet is not brand name of Economos, Austria Gmbh which has been clarified by the said company. He submits that the name Seal Jet is not fixed on the product where as this is mentioned on the packaging of the goods manufactured by the appellant, therefore since the goods itself do not bear the name of Seal Jet it cannot be treated as branded goods. As regard the limitation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf shows that brand name was not belonging to foreign company Economos, Austria. As regard the demand of extended period, he submits that in the year 2000 when their turn over was crossed SSI limit they had obtained Central Excise registration. They also filed the declaration under Rule 173B of Central Excise Act, 1994 in February, 2000. The fact that appellant mentioning logo Seal Jet on the package of the product and the machine, from which it is manufactured purchased from Economos, Austria also bear the name of Seal Jet which known to the department. Even letter heads through which correspondence made with department were also bearing the logo Seal Jet therefore there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant hence extended period of demand could not have been invoked. He further submits that only on the basis of logo appearing on the stationary, polythene bags, invoices, the SSI exemption cannot be denied, in view of the Supreme Court judgments in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur Vs. Superex Industries [2004(174) ELT 4(S.C.)]. He submits that Seal Jet brand was admittedly used by more than one person, therefore the fact that brand n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the product itself does not bear the name of Seal Jet does not mean the product is not branded. In case of packaged goods the brand is always affixed on the packages and not on the product. We are of the clear view that goods cleared by the appellant is branded goods under the brand name of Seal Jet . Now the issue whether the Seal Jet brand belong to some other person, we observed that factually the machine imported by the appellant from Economos, Austria bear the same brand in the same design i.e. Seal Jet , This established that the Seal Jet brand belongs to Economos, Austria. As regard the various correspondence by which Economos, Austria denied that Seal Jet brand does not belong to them and they have no objection to use logo Seal Jet by any other person, we are of the view that even though Economos, Austria has stated above but the fact remains that Seal Jet brand was affixed on the machine supplied by Economos, Austria. This is sufficient to establish that the Seal Jet brand belong to Economos, Austria therefore various correspondence through which Economos, Austria denies the ownership of the brand will not make any difference to the fact that brand name S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
