9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e moulded articles of plastics like Textiles Bobbins, T.V. and Radio Parts, Trays and Containers etc; that they are Supplying Colour T.V. Back Covers and embossed with marking "CROMA COLOUR CC" to M/s. TV and Components Ltd., Appellant No. 2, who were using the same in manufacturing their TV Sets; that Textile Bobbins bearing brand name 'Garden' was supplied by them to M/s. Garden Silk Mills through M/s. Honest Sales Agency; that they also supply textile Bobbins with brand name 'Honest' mentioned thereon to M/s. Honest Sales Agency; that the Additional Collector confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty holding that the Appellants No. 1, were affixing the excisable goods with brand name 'Garden', and CROMA COLOUR CC and as such were ineli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings on this allegation in the Adjudication Order passed by him. 3. Finally he submitted that major part of the demand is hit by the time limit as specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act as the show-cause notice was issued on 30-11-1990 for demanding the duty for the period from 1-10-1987 to 12-6-1990. He mentioned that while considering the imposition of penalty, the Additional Collector herself gave the findings that "the Notification 175/86 is not crystal clear on what has to be excluded from exemption". He contended that once the Additional Collector gives the findings that the Notification was not Crystal clear the allegation of suppression of facts cannot be levelled against them in view of the decision of the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the components parts of any machinery or equipments to be traded in ordinary crouse of business for attracting the mischief of paragraph 7; that as the goods were used as original equipment the decision in the case of Prakash Industries is not applicable. He further submitted that the decision in the case of Wood's Glamour case (supra) has not been specifically overruled by the Larger Bench in Prakash Industries case, since, the Larger Bench has observed only that "it appears that the law stated by the Tribunal in the Konark TV case is not correct"; that in Wood's Glamour case, the Tribunal has clearly held that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was not available to the T.V. Cabinets affixed with Brand name Konark of another manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h name or mark. It is thus evident that a connection in the course of trade between the goods and the trade mark must be there for attracting the mischief contained in para 7; that the sale of goods to the owner of the brand name itself for his own use cannot be equated with the dealings in the course of trade. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held similar views in the case of Prakash Industries (Supra). The ratio of the decision in the case is that if the branded goods are only supplied to the Customers and not traded in the market, the use of the brand name is not in the course of trade. The goods involved is immaterial so long the goods affixed with the brand name are supplied to the owner of the brand name who does not trade them in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
