Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (2) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the word PETHE belongs to any particular person. We find support in the CBEC Circular 52/52/94-CX, 1-9-1994 that the brand name is not owned by any particular person. The use thereof will not deprive a unit of the benefit of SSI. Though we hold that the word PETHE cannot be considered as a brand name or trade name but even if the same is considered as brand name or trade name and since it is not owned by any particular person, relying on CBEC circular, the appellants could be entitled for SSI exemption. We also find support in the Tribunal's judgment reported in [ 2001 (8) TMI 426 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] Unjha Ayurvedic Pharmacy v. CCE, Jaipur. We have perused the classification list and the model nos. given and detailed description a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... availed exemption at the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 as amended. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 20 April, 1998 to the appellants proposing denial of SSI exemption, demanding differential duty of Rs. 37,10,607/- proposing confiscation of the seized goods, demanding interest and penalty and confiscation of plant, building and machinery etc. 2. In the adjudication proceedings, the ld. Commissioner confirmed the demands and held as under :- (a) These two are Private Ltd. Companies whose shares are closely held by the PETHE's and their close family members. (b) The word Brand name or Trade name is defined in the explanation IX of the Notification No. 1/93, was wide enough to cover .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1 as Guhagar, district Ratnagiri manufacturing :- (a) Electrical motors falling under CH. Heading 85.01 (b) Electromagnetic Brakes and clutches and parts falling under Ch. Heading 85.05 (c) Brake motors and Thrustors falling under Ch. Heading 8543.10. 4. The other unit, M/s. PETHE Engg. Pvt. Ltd. at Lonavala since 1974 was manufacturing: (a) Brakes, clutches and parts falling under Ch. Heading 85.05. (b) Both the units have filed classification list and the appellants are manufacturing brakes and clutches described as model DAT-130, DAT-140, DAT 150, DAT 290, DMT 0.15, DMT 0.20 etc. The model numbers were declared alongwith classification lists. 5. M/s. PETHE Engg. Pvt. Ltd. at Lonavala were manufacturing clutches of different models i.e. V .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of SSI exemption. The Department has not proved that the "PETHE" word belongs to any particular person and therefore as per the instructions of the CBEC, the appellants are entitled to Notification No. 1/93. He further stated that the appellants are manufacturing electrical motors and brake motors and thrustor products in addition to brakes and clutches which are only common with Lonavala factory, as would be seen from the classification list filed by both the units, they are having different model numbers and different capacities and they cannot be considered as identical goods. Then he referred to the judgment of Tribunal in the case of Fine Enterprises reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 53 (Tri. - LB), wherein it was held that units using the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce or failure on the part of manufacturer is required to be proved. 10. The ld. DR strongly contended that the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner for confirmation of the demand and imposing penalty etc. are correct and that the appeal should be dismissed. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The first contention raised by the ld. Counsel that the word "PETHE" used on the metal labels is not a brand name or trade name but only a house mark or family name. As it happens "PETHE" is a surname and anybody having "PETHE" surname can use the same without any restriction. We agree with the submission in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Supra). The word "PETHE" is only a family name .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates