9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s set aside the Order-In-Original by allowing the appeals of the respondent/department and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 27,77,567/- and 12,72,197/- respectively. As the issue involved in both the appeals is identical and the appellant being partnership firm having common partners in both the appeals therefore both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. For the sake of the convenience the facts of the appeal no. E/1375/2010 are taken up. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of power press and parts thereof covered under chapter 84 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing benefit of SSI exemption on the said goods. That o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use of the brand name 'BASANT-KS' by suffixing the letters 'KS' (abbreviation for Kanwarjit Singh, Partner of the appellant firm) to the inherited name 'BASANT' is entirely fortuitous and is not a case of use of brand name belonging to the other person. The original authority while dropping the demand relied upon the following two decisions: CCE, Tricy vs. Rukmani Pakkwel Traders-2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC). Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhalla Enterprises- 2004 (173) ELT 225 (SC). 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the department filed the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 05.06.2009 and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the Order-in-Original relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions: Commissioner of C.Ex., Rohtak Vs. Yatharth Yantra Udyog-2017 (357) ELT 380 (Tri.-Chan.). Commissioner Vs. Malabar Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (183) ELT 223 (Tri.-Bang.). Deeba Foundary Vs. Commissioner - 2001 (137) ELT 1180 (Tri.-Chennai). Commissioner Vs. Pethe Breaks Motors Ltd. - 2005 (179) ELT 57 (Tri.-Mum) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2006 (198) ELT A175 (SC). 7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also filed an affidavit of Kanwarjit Singh S/o Sh. Surjit Singh partner of the firm namely M/s Basant Machine Tools and M/s Basant Sales Corporation and has also enclosed family chart evidencing that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'BASANT-KS' only to exploit the goodwill of brand name 'BASANT' in the market by availing SSI exemption. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following cases: CCE, Tricy Vs. Rukmani Pakkwel Traders - 2004 (165) E..t. 481 (S.C. ) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Mahaan Diaries - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.). CCE Bangalore Vs. Vetcare Organics P. Ltd. - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 384 (S.C.). 11. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that on an identical issue regarding the brand name 'BASANT' this Tribunal in the case of Basant Pressess (India) vide Final Order No. 61066/2017 dated 09.06.2017 had held that the trademark BASANT was being used by BMW and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
