2004 (12) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cylinders. The department initiated proceedings invoking larger period on the allegation that they have used the brand name and hence are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, 1/93. The Commissioner after due consideration of the matter in the light of several judgments of the Apex Court, High Court and the Tribunal noted in his order, has decided the case in the assessee's favour both on time bar as well as on merits of the case. The findings recorded by him in paras 13 to 17 are reproduced herein below : "13. I have carefully considered the appeal memorandum and the detailed submission made on behalf of the appellants as summed up in paragraphs 2 to 12 above. The arguments advanced by the appellant's representa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hand, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Cochin Soft Drinks v. C.C.E., reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 275. The facts of the case are quite different from the present one inasmuch as the markings in the case of soft drinks clearly connotes to the buyer of the soft drink a known brand name indicating the link between product and the brand owner. It is not the same case herein as the markings are basically in compliance of the requirements under the Gas Cylinder Rules and the same do not constitute any brand name or trade name. 16. The arguments advanced by the appellants in regard to applicability of Section 11A and 11AC are also equally valid. 17. In view of the findings as above, I set aside the O .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... les, 1981 wherein a specific provision have been made for marking and labeling of Company's name on the gas cylinders for the purpose of identification. Merely because the appellants are marking cylinders with their company's name by itself cannot be considered as affixing the brand name. The Commissioner has correctly analysed the facts of the entire case and has correctly noted the provisions of law and has rightly held that merely because the assessee has affixed their name in terms of the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 by itself can not be held that they have affixed the brand name. The assessees have not affixed any brand name even in terms of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of as reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214. The affixing o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X