TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds SSI Benefits Eligibility Despite Logo Use Dispute</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., INDORE Versus HOD LABORATORIES LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., INDORE Versus HOD LABORATORIES LTD. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 458 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification 1/93-C.E. regarding SSI benefit for P&P Medicaments.2. Use of promoter's logo on goods and its impact on eligibility for exemption.3. Comparison with relevant case laws - CCE, Mumbai v. Ark Laboratories and Astra Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh.4. Application of Tribunal's decisions in similar cases like Nivaram Pharma Private Ltd. and Chopra Appliances.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondents for Small Scale Industry (SSI) benefit under Notification 1/93-C.E. The respondents manufactured Patent & Proprietary (P&P) Medicaments, claiming the benefit by using their own brand name on the goods and affixing the logo of a promoter. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit, considering the logo as indicating a connection in the course of trade between the medicines and the promoter, Teblik Drugs Private Ltd.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the adjudication order, citing precedents such as the Tribunal's decision in CCE, Mumbai v. Ark Laboratories and the Apex Court decision in Astra Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh. The issue revolved around whether the promoter's logo should be considered a brand name or trade name under the definition of Para 4 of Notification 1/93, impacting the eligibility for the exemption.3. The Tribunal, comprising Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T), analyzed the case in light of previous judgments. They noted that while the goods bore the manufacturer's brand name, the use of the promoter's logo was the point of contention. Referring to cases like Ark Laboratories and Nivaram Pharma Private Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of the notification should be extended in such situations where the logo does not alter the eligibility criteria.4. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the decision in Chopra Appliances v. CCE, Delhi, where the product was associated with a different group by affixing additional brand names. In this context, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The judgment reaffirmed the interpretation of the notification and the relevance of case laws in determining the eligibility for SSI benefits in similar scenarios involving the use of logos and brand names on goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
