9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them. It is stated that the said brand name belonged to another unit namely M/s. Josalin Electrical Industries (JEI, for short) and M/s. JEI were also issued with show cause notice that they have used the brand name "JOSALIN", "QUEEN" and "SUPREME". Although these names had not been registered in their name under the Trade and Merchandise Mart Act, 1958, the Commissioner accepted the explanation given by M/s. JEI with regard to use of the said brand name on the 'chokes' and 'tube light patties' and dropped proceedings against them, however, he has confirmed demands against the appellants and imposed penalty also and hence this appeal. 2. Ld. Consultant Shri A. Vijayaraghavan appeared for the appellants and contended that they had been fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty can be accepted and hence larger period cannot be invoked as held in Intercity Cable System (P) Ltd. v. CCE. New Delhi - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 445 wherein the Tribunal had applied the ratio of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Collector v. Champohor Drugs Liniments - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 and that of Padmini Products v. Collector - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) which has been extracted in the said judgment. He pointed out that this finding of the Tribunal on non-invocation of larger period by using the brand name has been upheld by the Apex Court and he filed extraction from 1996 Vol. 88 E.L.T. A 68. He submitted that this view has also been further confirmed by the Tribunal in the case of Festo Controls Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are disentitled to the benefit of the notification. These details had not been furnished to the department and the item being traded with same brand name, larger period was invokable and hence he sought for confirmation of demands. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the Consultant has confined his arguments only on the non-invocation of larger period on the ground that law does not require them to declare about use of brand name in the declaration form being filed and in this context he relied on the Bombay Bench judgment rendered in Balsara Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as Intercity Cable System (P) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi (supra). We have perused these judgments and find that they are on identic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and when he had visited, he was duty bound to have asked all the details before approving the ground plan, and in case, he had asked any information and if that information had been held by them, then they can be held liable for any violation of suppression and not otherwise. In this connection, this Tribunal's decision in the case of Asoka Wafers v. C.C.E., Hyderabad reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 725 (T) is placed before us to support the plea of the appellants and the findings recorded in para 6 on the aspect of suppression is relevant and applicable to the facts of this case. The Tribunal observed that there were two sister units, one manufacturing wafer with the brand name "ASOKA" and the other manufacturing biscuits with the same bran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
