TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2000-2001 (upto 2-12-2000), they wrongly availed the value based exemption (SSI exemption) under Notfn. Nos. 8/99-C.E. dated 28-2-99 and 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 and contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 49, 52A, 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is alleged that they had filed the classification declarations declaring as, "We are not using any brand name of any other party/firm". However, on visit to their factory premises by the officers of the Anti Evasion Wing of the Commissionerate on 4-12-2000, it was found that the mattresses manufactured by them were bearing the same logo and symbols as used by other companies of 'Arvind group' namely, M/s. Arvind International Ltd., Bagru & M/s. Aparna Poly Products Ltd., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove facts and made a false declaration in the classification declaration filed by them with an intent to evade central excise duty. It is further stated that Sh. Parsa Ram Jangir, Authorized Signatory of the party in his statement dated 4-12-2000 deposed that their goods bore the aforementioned logo/monogram/symbol in the same style and manner as affixed by other companies of Arvind Group on their products; that M/s. Arvind International Ltd., M/s. Aparna Polyproducts Ltd., & M/s. Arvind Chemicals Ltd. were using common Logo/Mark/Symbol on their products. It is stated that Sh. Lalit Kumar Khetan, Director of the noticee party, in his statement, also affirmed the same facts and further stated that they mentioned the name 'Multi Flex' on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 23,87,992/- on the party under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by denying them the exemption under the above notifications and further imposed a penalty of equal amount on them under Section 11AC. They have further been asked to pay the interest under Section 11AB and have also been subjected to a further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As regards the notice for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A to Sh. Lalit Kumar Khetan, Director and Sh. Parsa Ram Jangir, Authorized Signatory of the noticee party, there are neither any findings against them nor any penalty is imposed in the order of the Commissioner. 4. This appeal is against the impugned order of the Commissioner. We have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y using such logo/symbol but without indicating the identity of such person. We do not see any ground to disagree with these findings of the Commissioner. The appellants are admittedly using the logos/symbols owned by Arvind Group Companies with the intention so that the goods manufactured and marketed by them are identified with those manufactured by Arvind Group and not to them alone. The aforesaid notifications clearly specify that the exemption is not available to the specified goods which bear the brand name or trade name of another person. On this ground, the appellants are not entitled to the exemption. The plea that these marks are used only on the polyethylene cover and the corrugated box also does not help their case. The mattress....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the form of an emblem, word or both. For each product a separate mark known as a product mark or a brand name is used which is invariably a word or a combination of a word and letter or numeral by which the product mark and house mark will appear side by side on all the labels, cartons etc. Goods are ordered only by the product mark or brand name. The house mark serves as an emblem of the manufacturer projecting the image of the manufacturer generally". 5. In view of the above, since there is no averment made before us to distinguish between the house mark and product mark (or brand name) in respect of mattresses - the product under consideration in the present proceedings - we reject this contention as untenable. There is no other....