Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessees were entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE when the goods were cleared under a brand name/trade name belonging to others, including club soda.
Analysis: The assessees had used the brand name of Kali Mark on the disputed aerated waters and drinks. A prior High Court judgment had already negatived the constitutional challenge and had recorded that the petitioners, including the present appellants, were manufacturing and marketing goods after affixing and using the brand/trade name registered in the name of K.P.R. Sakthivel. That finding specifically covered the goods in question, including club soda. In view of that binding finding, the contention that club soda was not a branded product because only a monogram crown was shown could not be accepted. The brand names were held to belong to M/s. Kali Mark, and the goods were therefore treated as branded goods manufactured for the family business.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to SSI exemption, and the duty demand was sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the impugned order confirming the duty demand was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods cleared under a brand name or trade name already held to belong to another person are not eligible for SSI exemption, and a prior binding finding on the identity of the brand name applies to all covered products.