2017 (10) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ablish that the appellant has been using the brand name belonging to another. The marketing agencies have produced letters stating that they do not claim any ownership of such brand name - it cannot be held that the appellant has been clearing goods with the brand name belonging to another person. With regard to issue of parallel invoice, the amount involved is only ₹ 13,219/- therefore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d resorted to raising parallel invoices, that is, two invoices bearing the same number but the goods covered in the said invoices are different and cleared to two different customers. Accordingly, they are also liable to pay excise duty on the parallel set of clearance valued at ₹ 81,000/-. Show cause notice was issued proposing to demand ₹ 2,88,521/- in respect of clearances made by a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing in its business approached various marketing agencies for the sale of the goods manufactured by them and procured orders from them by coining the brand name for such products in consultation with the said marketing agencies. Since the marketing agencies were not willing to undertake marketing of the food supplement in any existing brand, the appellant was compelled to coin the brand name for e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is seen that the brand names in question were coined by the appellant and its marketing agencies, since they were not willing to undertake marketing of the products without such brand names. It is also brought out from the documents produced by the appellant that such marketing agencies / customers do not claim owner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have categorically held that the onus lies on the department to establish that the brand name belongs to another person. 8. With regard to issue of parallel invoice, the amount involved is only ₹ 13,219/- therefore, the appellant would come within the SSI exemption limit. 9. From the above discussions, we find that the demand raised alleging misuse of brand name of another person is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X