9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rall in-charge of the said firm. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant-firm is a manufacturer of various types of wet grinders. The firm has been availing the exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE dt. 01/03/2003 and is not registered under the Central Excise Rules. On the reasonable belief that the appellants are removing their products using the brand name LAKSHMI owned by another unit, searches were conducted at the factory premises and after further investigation, a show-cause notice was issued to demand duty of Rs. 4,95,390/- on the goods cleared availing ineligible exemption during the period from January 2001 to August 2005 and proposing penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee and another person were using the same logo/trademark simultaneously in their own right and the assessee claiming to have started its use first and other person got it registered subsequently. In such situation the assessee cannot be denied SSI exemption on the ground of using the brand name of another person. He further submitted that the trade mark registration obtained by Sri Lakshmi Industries, Coimbatore is a combination of name and the manner in which it was written and the marks were arranged in a particular way and affixed on the goods. Whereas in the present case barring use of common name, there is no similarity whatsoever, between the logo used by the appellant and that used by Sri Lakshmi Industries. Therefore as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny provisions of Trade Mark Act by using the house mark Lakshmi Lew . 4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the same Commissioner(Appeals) in respect of another unit using the same name had already taken a view that in view of the difference in the nature of the logo and the word Lakshmi which was used by the assessee, the assessee in that case would not be said to have used the brand name belonging to another person for the purpose of denying it the benefit of exemption notification and the copy of the said order No.61 & 62/2008 dt. 24/04/2008 has also been placed on record. He also submitted that the same Commissioner passed a Order-in-Appeal No.83/2008-CE dt. 20/11/2008 allowed appeal filed by the appellant for the subsequent peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t entitled to SSI exemption. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Trichy Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. [2005(183) ELT 123 (SC)] ii. CCE, Chandigarh-I Vs. Mahaan Dairies [2004(166) ELT 23 (SC)] iii. CCE, Delhi Vs. Ace Auto Comp. Ltd. [2011(263) ELT 3 (SC)] iv. CCE, Chandigarh-II Vs. Bhalla Enterprises [2004(173) ELT 225 (SC)] v. CCE, Trichy Vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004(165) ELT 481 (SC)] 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused material on record. We have also gone through the various decisions relied upon by both the parties. We find that the same Commissioner(Appeals) in the appellant s own case for the subsequent period i.e. September 2005 to July 2006 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
