TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s units in cartons, which already carry the brand name. POY received by them was wound on paper tubes, which did not carry any brand name and after texturising they used the same cartons for packing the texturised yarn and cleared the same to the principal manufacturer, who after re-packed either sold the same in the market or sent the same further for twisting to other manufacturers. They also contended that there was a general practice in the texturising industry to re-use the cartons received from the POY manufacturers and the packing slips of the manufacturers are either pasted on the outside of the cartons or kept in the cartons only with the purpose to identify as to whom the goods belong, inasmuch as they received yarn for texturising purposes from various manufacturers. 3. While dealing with the above contentions, the adjudicating authority has observed that it is a general practice that texturisers used the second-hand cartons for packing the texturised yarn manufactured by them. The adjudicating authority has further observed that the goods are not physically available so as to find out whether such brand name was actually affixed or not, but has gone by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being manufactured and cleared to the brand name owner for further use as dyed yarn and was not being marketed by them, the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. S.A. Industries [2000 (121) E.L.T. 393 (Tri.)] would be applicable laying down that use of brand name on the covers will not amount to use of brand name on the goods. In any case, as already observed by us, such pasting of slips on the old and used cartons in which yarn is filled for the purposes of identification will not amount to use of brand name of another person, thus disentitling the appellant from the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant." As such, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be held that the appellants are affixing the brand name of other processors on the textured yarn. As such, we hold that the benefit of small scale exemption cannot be denied to the appellants. 6. We also find that the demand is hit by the bar of limitation, Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ramply (India) Ltd. & Anr. [2007 (216) E.L.T. 129 (Tri.) = 2007 (82) RLT 363 (CESTAT-LB)] has h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dipon Fibres Company, Shri Zarir J. Karai, Senior Manager also stated that they received texturised yarn from the job workers and sold the same to authorized customers as per their demand under commercial invoices. Similarly, in the case of M/s. Aakash filament, the statement from both the representatives of the job worker as well as purchaser have been recorded that the logo and packing slip supplied by them were used. Shri Aakash K. Agarwal has stated that they were only traders. These inculpatory statements have not been retracted and in fact, the appellants had debited the amounts as soon as the case was registered. The appellants did not even reply to the show cause notice at the original adjudication stage. Therefore the inculpatory statements stand and even recipient who participated in the adjudication proceedings also did not say that their logo/brand name was not used on the goods supplied to them. Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly recorded a finding that appellants had used brand name/logo and the packing slip for affixing the same on the boxes and the paper tubes of texturising yarn manufactured and cleared from the factory of the appellants. The appeal memorandum subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and use of company's name does not come within the ambit of the brand name. Apex Court in Commissioner of C.Ex., Trichy v. Grasim Industries reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.) had observed as under : "15. In the case of Nippa Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd.'s case (supra) the question was whether the Appellants (therein) were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1st March, 1986. That Notification also contained an explanation (being Explanation VIII) which in terms is identical to the Explanation under consideration by us. The Appellants therein used the following words : "MANUFACTURED IN INDIA BY NIPA CHEMICALS LTD., In Collaboration with Nihon Parkerizing Co. Ltd., Japan. 46, Garuda Buildings, Cathedral Road, Chennai-600086. MARKETED IN INDIA BY Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-4000I3. " The Tribunal held that the use of these words did not preclude the Appellants (therein) from availing of the benefit of the Notification. To be immediately noted that in that case it was neither admitted nor proved that the words were used to indicate a connection between the product and Nihon Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e writing, praise in writing; ~-up (n.) review or report. Writing (r-) n. (esp.) Written document; (piece of) literary work; personal script, handwriting; put in ~, write down; the Writings, = HAGIOGRAPHA; ~-case, case holding writing materials; ~-desk, desk; ~-master, instructor in penmanship; the yellow-hammer (from marks like scribbling on eggs); ~-paper, paper for writing on with ink, esp. note-paper; ~-table, desk. It is therefore seen that these are certain words enumerated 12. to project the name of the two particular companies and they do not come within the purview of "Writing" or "name". These are mere printed words indicating the names of two companies. Therefore, in our view, these will never come within the purview of "brand name" in view of the fact that they do not come within the meaning of "name" or "mark" which is elaborated in the explanation to "brand name" and this being the position, the arguments of the learned DR cannot be accepted..........." In our view, the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself. The term "brand name or trade name" is qualified by the words "that is to say". Thus, even though under normal circumstances a brand name or a trade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hose medicines which are exclusively ayurvedic, unani, sidha or homoeopathic. 12-1/2% Adv 10% of the basic duty chargeable Explanation : I "Patent or proprietary medicines" means any drug or medicinal preparation, in whatever form, for use in the internal or external treatment of, or for the prevention of ailments in human beings or animals, which bears either on itself or on its container or both, a name which is not specified in a monograph in a Pharmacopoeia Formulary or other publications notified in this behalf by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, or which is a brand name, that is a name or a registered trade mark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or any other mark such as a symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words or any writing which is used in relation to that medicine for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the medicine and some person, having the right either as proprietor or otherwise to use the name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. Explanation : II. 'Alcohol', 'Opium', "Indian Hemp", "Narcotic Drugs" an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or any writing" would cover the name of a company so long as it is used in relation to the product and is used for the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of a trade between the product and other person. 11. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in Grasim Industries case, it is quite clear that the appellants have no case and therefore, the appeals deserve to be rejected and accordingly, these two appeals are rejected. Sd/- (B.S.V. Murthy) Member (T) DIFFERENCE OF OPINION Whether the appeals of M/s. Jagat Texturising and one other in Appeal No. E/941 and E/942/05 are to be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants as held by Member (Judicial) or rejected as held by Member (Technical). In view of the above difference of opinion, Registry is directed to place the paper before Hon'ble President for referring the matter to Third Member. Sd/- (B.S.V. Murthy) Member (T) Dated 24-6-2008 Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (J) Dated 24-6-2008 12. [Per : K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 13. Ld. advocate for the appellants submitted that though he is not contesting the demand of ....