9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents who manufacture oil bound distemper, Synthetic enamel paint, etc. which are cleared under the brand name "JEPIKA"; that Shri Bharat Bhushan Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Jepika Paints, deposed in his statement dated 5-10-1998 that brand name "JEPIKA" is registered in the name of M/s. Jepika Chemicals Industries Pvt. Ltd. and that from the beginning i.e. 8-5-1993 he had manufactured Jepika brand oil bound distemper, etc.; that only subsequently after more than five months, in his statement dated 13-3-1996, Shri B.B. Gupta claimed that "JEPIKA" Brand had been sold to him by Sale Deed 10-1-1994 for a consideration of Rs. 21,000/-; that the Additional Commissioner, under Order-in-Original Nos. 132-136/2001, dated 31-1-2001, has confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Prince Valves Industry v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 100 (T) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that a brand name registered in the name of another partnership firm which stood dissolved cannot be used by the Appellants. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Chhaganlal Sharma v. CCE, Indore - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 489 (T) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that the sale deed executed in 1997 is nothing but a device to evade the payment of Central Excise duty. He also mentioned that the appeal as well as Review petition filed by the assessee have been dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. A66 (S.C.) and 2004 (169) E.L.T. A93 (S.C.). 4. On the other hand, Shri K.K. Anan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he brand name "JEPIKA" used by the Respondent initially belonged to person other than the Respondent. The disputed question is when the said brand name was sold to the respondent i.e. in January 1994 as claimed by the Respondent. We observe that when the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the Respondent on 5-10-1995 and recorded the statement of Proprietor Shri Bharat Bhushan Gupta who deposed that the brand name is registered in the name of M/s. Jepika Chemicals Industries P. Ltd. He did not at all mention that the brand name has been sold to him in January, 1994 for a consideration of Rs. 21,000/-. It has also not been claimed before us that the said statement was recorded under any duress or coercion. The Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts up to 18-4-1996. For the subsequent period commencing from 19-4-1996, the matter regarding eligibility to the small scale exemption Notification is remanded to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh after hearing the Respondents about the action taken by the Competent Authority on their application for registration of brand name under the Trade Marks Act. The question of imposing penalty is also left open to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority. The confiscation of the seized goods is upheld as the excisable goods were branded goods and not accounted for in the statutory records. The redemption fine is, however, reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. The appeal filed by Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
