9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not belong to any particular manufacturer, any unit is free to use any name or such name - In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the brand name Hi-Tech was not owned by any particular person or company and thus, the appellant cannot be deprived the benefit of the small-scale exemption scheme under N/N. 8/2002 read with 8/2003 CE as amended - further, the name of the appellant company is M/s Hi-Tech Syringes Private Ltd and thus putting their name on their product does not amount to use of brand name of another. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1001 & 1002/2009-EX[SM] - A/71163-71164/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 20-9-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Ms. Vanashri Debey for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in these appeals is whether the appellant have wrongly availed the SSI exemption as specified in the Notification No.8/2003 CX dated 01 March, 2003, which as per Revenue was not available to them in terms of Para-four of the Notification No.8/2002 CE read with Notification 8/2003 CE. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve of the appellant was recorded under Section 14 of the Act on 13 February, 2004, wherein he stated that Hi-Tech brand is neither their registered brand name nor they have been authorised by any other manufacturer to manufacture their products with the name Hi-Tech brand. Further statement of the Shri Salauddin, Managing Director of the appellant was also recorded wherein he admitted the facts stated by Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava and also admitted that he was aware of the fact that Hi-Tech brand of disposable syringes are manufactured by another unit/company namely M/s Hi-Tech Medical Products Ltd, Gida, Gorakhpur located in the same area. He further stated that he had knowledge of the fact that SSI exemption is not available on manufacture of branded products of another manufacturer, but claimed that in case the units located in a rural area, the benefit of exemption is available, but he failed to produce any documentary evidence stating that his unit is located in rural area. It further appeared to Revenue that the Gida, Gorakhpur is not a rural area and Government of UP have notified it as an industrial area in the Gazette dated 27 March, 2001. Moreover, as per information do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SSI manufacturer. The only requirement of the Notification is that the brand name or the trade name should not be of any other person. In other words the brand name or the trade name should belong or should be owned by any other person. In the facts of the present case, the words and phrases and other material appearing on the goods manufactured by appellant, does not belong or is owned by anyone else. It is further urged that the present dispute relates to interpretation of SSI Notification as to whether the appellant manufactured the goods affixing the brand name belonging to another person. It is not in dispute that the appellant cleared goods under proper invoices and filed the prescribed returns/declarations from time to time. It is also not in dispute that appellant cleared the goods after proper entry in the statutory RG 1 Register. That, there is no case of any suppression or mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. Further, the Revenue has not placed any evidence on record that the goods were mis-declared or mis-described in the statutory records with intention to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances neither the extended period of li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marketing company to which the appellant Nirelax sold its goods was a related person and therefore the correct assessable value, the price at which goods were sold by the marketing company and not the price at which goods were sold to the marketing company by Nirlex. Further fact on record was that the said hexagon of shapes/design belong to or was owned by the marketing company and thus they had permitted Nirlex to use the same on their corrugated boxes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the clarification. In this regard, issued by the Law Ministry being Circular No.52/52/94 CX dated 01 September, 1994 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, wherein it is provided that: Perusal of the said explanation (Explanation IX to the Notification No.1/93-C.E.) will show that to satisfy the requirement of brand name or trade name, it is necessary that the trade name, it is necessary that the trade name must indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication or identity of that person. Unless connection between the trade name and the person with whom that trade name is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
