9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and miscellaneous charges but the same was not considered in calculating the value of the product - the appellant is required to discharge duty of ₹ 16,960/- - demand upheld. SSI exemption - Allegation of using other s brand name - HELD THAT:- Trade Marks, which were used by the seller i.e. the appellant allows/ authorizes the buyers to use the same during the course of distribution of the product. The intention of the parties is also evident from the Affidavit-cum-Disclaimer certificate issued by the said buyers. Therefore, the conclusion by the authorities below that the appellant had sold the brand name of the distributors/buyers and hence the same belong to the distributor/buyer, is without any merit and evidence on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esulting into short payment of duty of ₹ 7,36,606/-, and the said amounts were proposed to be recovered with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the total demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, learned Advocate Shri V.S. Sejpal for the appellant submits that the amount of ₹ 5,40,753/- alleged to have been collected in addition to the conversion charges by the appellant-job worker by way of issuing debit notes is incorrect. It is his contention that the excise invoices were issued only for the purpose of recovery of excise duty ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive buyers and hence they cannot claim the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2002. The learned Advocate has referred to the agreements entered with the respective buyers annexed to the appeal paper book (page 110). It is his contention that the said agreement is purely a sale and purchase agreement and the appellant be authorized the buyers to use their brand name in the course of distributing the product V-Flox, which is patented in their name and necessary declaration in this regard was filed with Drug Controller under the relevant provisions of the Drugs Cosmetics Act. Further, he has referred to Affidavit-cum- Disclaimer certificate of respective distributors, who has categorically stated that they have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge duty of ₹ 16,960/-. 7. As far as allegation of using other s brand name is concerned, we have carefully analyzed the agreements with respective distributors (page 23 to 38 of the appeal paper book) and noticed that these agreements are for sale-cum-purchase of the medicaments and in the process it is mentioned that Trade Marks, which were used by the seller i.e. the appellant allows/ authorizes the buyers to use the same during the course of distribution of the product. The intention of the parties is also evident from the Affidavit-cum-Disclaimer certificate issued by the said buyers. Therefore, the conclusion by the authorities below that the appellant had sold the brand name of the distributors/buyers and hence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
