9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on record during the course of investigation - It may be mentioned that the Board’s Circular No. 52/52/94-CX, dated 1-9-1994 observed in para 4 that “if a brand name is not owned by any particular person, the use thereof will not deprive a unit of the benefit of the small scale exemption scheme. This applies not only to locks but to all other goods specified in Notification No. 1/93-C.E.” SSI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmula ) and Body Gel (under the brand name Allure ) in bulk packs of 50/100 kilos from Infotainment Inc. of USA. The appellant was selling the goods after packing them in retail packs to M/s. Telebrands (India) Ltd. who in turn were marketing and selling these products. A search was conducted at the business premises of the appellant on 18-3-2004. After issuing a show cause notice, the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation. 5. It may be mentioned that the Board s Circular No. 52/52/94-CX, dated 1-9-1994 observed in para 4 that if a brand name is not owned by any particular person, the use thereof will not deprive a unit of the benefit of the small scale exemption scheme. This applies not only to locks but to all other goods specified in Notification No. 1/93-C.E. 6. The Tribunal in the case of Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hant was only a house mark. Nobody purchases the goods in the name of Hathi. The goods were being sold by their name as Somkalpa, Sundari, Sanjivani, Kafeshwari, etc. Thus, we find that the elephant logo no doubt indicated that the goods were manufactured by particular firm/person but did not relate to the brand name as the goods were not sold by Hathi logo. In this view of the matter also, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
