TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is one and the same in both the appeals, we are passing a common order. The appellants M/s. Madras Cement Limited are the manufacturers of cement which is an excisable commodity. They availed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002 as amended (Sl. No. 19). In terms of the condition No. 2(iii) stipulated in the said Notification, exemption was not applicable to the item viz., cement cleared with the brand name or trade name of another person. They were affixing words "RAMCO PRODUCT" in the local language viz., in Kannada on the HDPE bags which were used to pack the cements and they were selling the cement manufactured by them under their own Trade Mark "KARTHIC". Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioning the name of RAMCO, the assessee are trying to convey to the customers that the quality of their product is equivalent to that of Ramco Group of Industries. The assessee submitted that they used only their brand name "KARTHIC" but the Commissioner has stated that it is immaterial whether or not the assessee have been using the brand name "KARTHIC" and what is relevant and needs to be analyzed is whether they are using the brand name of other person or not. He has held that by writing "RAMCO PRODUCT" on the HDPE bags of cement, the appellant had used the brand name of others. He has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Trichy v. M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra). In these circumstances, the Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rand name, exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. dated 1-3-2002 was claimed and allowed in the past. The word "RAMCO" is an integral part of their registered brand name and hence, a contradictory view cannot be taken merely for the reason that concessional rate was claimed for "KARTHIC" brand. (v) The valued customers in Karnataka are familiar with RAMCO CEMENT and "KARTHIC" being a brand name of the appellants, it was believed that the customers may be misled to conclude that "KARTHIC" brand name is from a different manufacturer and hence, they were required to print the words "RAMCO PRODUCT" in local language. The printing of the above words on the HDPE bags in Kannada language is more to emphasis and reassure their customers th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustries Ltd. (viii) It is in the context of the above markings, the Apex Court held that there was intention of indicating a connection between the product i.e., cement and Grasim Industries. As a consequence, the Apex Court concluded that the respondents used the trade name of other company with the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the product and that person. In the present case, the brand name as declared to the Trade Authorities is also owned by the appellants and therefore, the clearance of cement under the brand name "KARTHIC" was fully in accordance with conditions stipulated in the Notification No. 6/2002. (ix) The imposition of penalty under Rule 25 to the differential duty is whol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tration under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 6.1 It has also been submitted that Ramco Industries manufacturing asbestos was established much later. It is obligatory on the part of the revenue to have shown that Ramco is indeed the brand name of another person with proper evidences. The appellants have produced evidence to show that the said brand name Ramco belongs to them. When this is the factual position, the appellants would not be violating the conditions of the said Notification. The finding of the Commissioner that they used the brand name of other, is not correct in the light of the submissions made by the appellants. The facts in the case of CCE v. M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) are distinguishable. I....