2001 (4) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent that, on their product viz. pure ghee, they were using "Mahaan" brand name belonging to M/s. Mahaan Foods Ltd. [in short, M/s. MFL] and would be paying duty on the product at full rate on account of use of other's brand name. In respect of branded pickles, they declared that they would be using their own brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" and would be paying duty on the product at the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 (prior to 2-6-1998, Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997). The respondents later informed the department that "Mahaan" was a registered brand name of M/s. MFL and that in 1997 they had applied for registration of the brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" for use on pickles. Later ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ASTEMAKER" was different from M/s. MFL's brand name "Mahaan". The party's appeals against the orders of the adjudicating authority were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeals of the Revenue. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. 3. We note that the challenge in these appeals is only in relation to the extent of duty liability on the branded pickles cleared from the respondents' factory during the aforesaid periods. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 16/97-C.E., 8/98-C.E. and 8/99-C.E. to the respondents in respect of the branded pickles on the ground that the brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" affixed on the containers of the product belonged t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aan TASTEMAKER" belonged to M/s. MFL. According to the appellant, the respondents had categorically admitted to this effect. Yet another ground raised by the Revenue is that the respondents were using the same monogram interchangeably for the two items viz. pure ghee and pickle. The Revenue has further raised a ground that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Khanna Industries (supra) is not to be relied upon inasmuch as the department has challenged that decision in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Revenue has also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Board's Circular dated 30-12-1988 erroneously. 5. Ld. SDR, Sh. M.D. Singh, reiterated the above grounds of the appeals. He submitted that the brand name "Maha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmissions. It is an admitted fact that the brand name "Mahaan" was a registered brand name of M/s. MFL for various specified food products and not for pickles like what was manufactured and cleared by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the respondents had applied for registration of the brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" for their products viz. pickles. That application was submitted prior to the period of dispute. Moreover, the party admittedly declared to the department that they would be using the brand name on the said products. Since the brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" was used by the respondent on a product different from the products of M/s. MFL for which the brand name "Mahaan" was registered, there is no justification for ....