2006 (4) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ws: The appellants are engaged in the packing and selling of "Vijaya" branded refined Edible Oil products such as RBD Palmolein packed in 1 litre, 1/2 litre and 200 ml packed in pouches. Consequent to imposition of duty on packed and branded Edible Oils in the Budget 2003-2004, the appellants obtained Central Excise registration. Till 23-3-2003, the appellants paid 8% ad valorem duty on the branded edible oils packed in unit containers for retail sale. From 24-3-2003, the appellant started clearing the goods in the unit containers without having the markings "Vijaya" without payment of duty presuming that the said goods are 'unbranded' and hence no duty is to be paid. [Pouch-II]. W.e.f. 30-4-2003, vide Notification No. 37/2003-CX, the du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants strongly challenge the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. 3. Shri G. Prabhakara Sastry, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, the learned SDR for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate made the following submissions:- (i)      The case of the department is that the logo "APOILFED" as appearing against the company's name is a brand for the oil and as such they are liable for payment of duty. (ii)    The contention of the petitioners is that the logo "APOILFED" is the logo of the federation, which only denote that they are members of that society. Like, BIS, AGMARK, etc., members of any oil company are required to use th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....214 (S.C.) in the following cases : (a)      CCE, Hyderabad v. Natco Pharma Ltd. - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 462 (Tri. - Bang.) (b)      Pethe Brake Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner, Pune - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 57 (Tri.) and many more cases. 4. The learned SDR emphasised that the Adjudicating Authority has clearly brought out that the logo and the name of the organisation APOILFED used in the Pouch even without the marking "Vijaya" amounts to using brand name and, therefore, the impugned goods are liable to duty. Further, he said that in the light of the Apex Court's decision in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Grasim Industries Ltd. - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.), the appellants should be considere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Oilseeds Growers' Federation Ltd. appears in both the Pouches. The Adjudicating Authority, after going through the definition of brand name in the relevant Notification 6/2003-CE, has come to the conclusion that the goods in Pouch-ll which carries the APOILFED logo falls within the definition of the branded goods or use of a 'brand name' as defined under the Explanation (ii) to the entry 244 of the Notification 6/2003-CE, dated 01-03-2003. He has stated that the expression 'brand name' is wide enough to cover the sale of the product by the assessee by using Pouch-II, since a complete connection gets established from the logo APOILFED. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Grasim Industries (cited supra), has made the followin....