9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Appellant. Shri Vinay N. Ansurkar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - These appeals filed by the Revenue involved the question of eligibility of the respondent M/s. Indo German Engineers for S.S.I. Exemption Notification. The period involved is April, 1998 to March, 2000. The total amount of duty demanded is Rs. 6,54,637/-. The Indo German Engineers (I.G.E. for short) manufacture machineries such as attraitor, high speed stirrer, bead mills, super flowing fine mills, dispenser resin kettles etc. which are in turn used in the production of plants of the paint and ink manufacturing industries. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty equal to the duty with interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 999 (113) E.L.T. 591 (Tri.). 3. Heard both sides. The case of the department is that the use of metal label reproduced above amounts to use of brand name or trade name and indicates connection to the German company. The logo does not belong to IGE, and therefore, IGE is not eligible for exemption. The Revenue also contends that the use of logo on the machineries manufactured and cleared by the respondents boosts the sale of the respondents, inasmuch as the production/machinery of the German company are also marketed in India and the brand name is also known in India. Further, the respondents also provide services for the products of foreign company and the said associated brand value of the logo indicates the connection in the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above is correctly applicable to the facts of this case. At this stage, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents states that duty demanded has not been treated the realized amount as cum-duty value and therefore, duty needs to be re-worked on that basis. Further, the penalty imposed will also need to be re-calculated in view of the above. Further, he also stated that penalty has been imposed on the proprietor as well as on the firm. Since it is well settled that once penalty is imposed on the firm, no penalty needs to be imposed on the proprietor, the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the proprietor is set aside. The Department's appeal is allowed on the above terms. (Pronounced in the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
