9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Advocate for the respondents that during the relevant period, there were conflicting decisions of the Appellate Tribunal itself, as to whether the benefit of small scale exemption is deniable to a manufacturer using the brand name/trade name of another person only when the excisable goods manufactured by him are the same goods. In view of the conflicting decisions the matter was referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Fine Industries [ 2002 (10) TMI 114 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI] . Accordingly, the respondents have reasons to hold the bona fide belief that they are eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption in respect of shaving cream bearing the brand name of another person as the brand name owner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of Appeal, filed against M/s. Paragon Fragrances, no prayer has been made against them nor any ground of appeal has been given for enhancing the penalty on them. We also heard Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned SDR. 3. A perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal, filed by the Revenue, confirms the submissions made by the learned Advocate. There is neither any prayer made in respect of enhancement of the penalty against M/s. Paragon Fragrances nor is there any averment in this regard in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal No. E/3196/2004-NB(C), against M/s. Paragon Fragrances, is not maintainable in absence of any averment and prayer. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal No. E/3196/2004-NB(C) filed by the Revenue. 4. The learned SDR, submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his statement dated 3-12-1999, has deposed that the brand name WONDERAX was got registered by them in 1971 and they had not authorised anybody to use the same; that, further, Shri U.S. Kapoor, Director of the respondent company, had also admitted in his statement dated 3-12-1999, that the brand name WONDERAX belongs to M/s. Wonderax Laboratories and they had been using the said brand name ignorantly; that these statements had not been retracted by any one of them. 6. Shri V.R. Sethi, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Wonderax Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd. had never manufactured the shaving cream and as such in terms of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. M/s. Fine Industries, [2002 (146) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/2004-NB(C) can be disposed of without going into the question as to whether the brand name WONDERAX had been assigned to the respondents by the brand name owner, M/s. Wonderax Laboratories or not. The show cause notice has been issued on 6-1-2003 for demanding the duty for the period from December, 1997 to 1999-2000 by invoking the extended period of limitation. We agree with the learned Advocate for the respondents that during the relevant period, there were conflicting decisions of the Appellate Tribunal itself, as to whether the benefit of small scale exemption is deniable to a manufacturer using the brand name/trade name of another person only when the excisable goods manufactured by him are the same goods. In view of the conflicting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
