9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ications - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi I Versus M/s. BONNE Care Pvt. Ltd. (Vice-Versa) [2016 (8) TMI 33 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] followed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/00040/2006 - Final Order No. 41251/2017 - Dated:- 14-6-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Judicial Member and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent Shri R. Raghavan, Adv. ORDER The appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 6/2005 (M-II)(D) dated 30.09.2005. 2. The impugned order dealt with the claim of SSI exemption in respect of the respondent M/s. Roopash Cosmetics, and also M/s. Vijay Chemicals Toilet Works, M/s. Vijay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad permitted Smt. D.V.Vyjanthi, Proprietrix of M/s. Roopash Cosmetics to manufacture and market Sandal Wood Talcum Powder etc., bearing the brand name of ASOKA - R in the Districts of Hyderbad, Secundarbad and Warangal. 4. Periodical show-cause notices were issued to all the firms proposing to deny the benefit of SSI Exemption on the allegation that they were clearing the goods bearing the brand name of an other persons, who is not entitled to avail the benefit of the said notification. This was in terms of para 4 of the Notification No. 8/2000-CE, dated 01.03.2000 and subsequent notifications. However, all such demands came to be dropped by the original authorities. Against such orders of the original authorities, Revenue filed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent supported the impugned order. He argued that the issue of the brand name was decided by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs M/s. Vijaya Chemicals Toilet Works reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 406 (Tri. -Chennai). The above decision, which is in respect of one of the firms involved in the present impugned order for an earlier period, will be applicable in respect of M/s. Roopash Cosmetics also. He further submitted that the very same order was relied upon by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order to hold that all the firms will be entitled to SSI benefite 10. On going through the records of the case, we find that the department has proceeded against all the five firms for denying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has come to the conclusion that the respondent will be entitled to use the brand name ASOKA with the suffix 'R' to the territory allotted to them, since such a brand name is used by the respondent only after proper assignment on dissolution of the parent firm. It is to be held that the respondent has not used the brand name of another person so as to incur the mischief of para 4 of the SSI notifications. Similar views have also been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I Vs Bonne Care Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (343) EL. T. 1097 (Tri. -Del.). 12. In view of the above discussions, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is upheld and the Revenue's appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
