TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore they are taken together for disposal. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the proceedings were initiated against the respondents on the ground that they were manufacturing and clearing "Plaster of Paris" bandage B.P., Elastic Adhesive Bandage B.P., and Cotton crepe bandage B.P. under the brand name of 'SARCAST ' belonging to M/s. Sar Medilink Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'SAR'), thus not eligible for benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/1999-C.E., and No. 8/2000-C.E. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the duty of Rs. 3,49,633/- under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner (Appeals)'s order is well reasoned order, which has considered all aspects of the case and does not require any interference. Revenue's appeal does not involve any question of law which has not been decided in appeal in view of the SSI notification and the case laws. The contention is that Revenue's allegation that they have used brand name of others, but the onus to prove is on Revenue. Revenue has relied upon solely on the statement of concerned person of the firm under the questionable circumstances and solely placed reliance on the same. It was obligatory on their part to prove the actual owner of the brand name. The investigations have not been extended to the owner of the brand name and there is no corroborative evidence to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to appellant's letter dt. 13-8-01 has certified "that we are marketing of Plaster of Paris Bandage manufactured by M/s. Gujarat Health Care, Ahmedabad and SARCAST is not our brand but it is exclusively of M/s. Gujarat Health Care, Ahmedabad". I find that when the alleged owner M/s. Sar Medilink (P) Ltd. of brand name SARCAST has denied the ownership of the said brand, the Department was required to further investigate to find out that whose name the said brand name belonged to instead of entirely and solely relying on the statement of the appellants dt. 8-11-00 which states that SARCAST brand belong to M/s. Sar Medilink (P) Ltd. It is settled law that when the ownership of brand name is in dispute, the burden to prove was on the departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other person on the basis of mere statement of partner of the appellants is not sustainable particularly when the alleged so called brand name holder M/s. Sar Medilink (P) Ltd. had already denied the ownership of SARCAST brand name. Further, it cannot be conclusively concluded from the contract clause (f) between the appellants and M/s. Sar Medilink (P) Ltd. that the brand name SARCAST was belonging to M/s. Sar Medilink (P) Ltd. New Delhi as it only states that Gujarat Health Care will not willingly or unwillingly sell or promote the brand name SARCAST without written consent of SAR. I, therefore, hold that SSI exemption is not deniable to the appellants on the ground, that the goods bear the brand name of other person and hence duty demand....