TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Services 8 E/756/07 Sh. K.M. Akhilan, Partner of M/s. Sunrise Ironing Equipments as the issue is same and interlinked in all these appeals. 2.The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that M/s. Sunfab, Bangalore (Period of dispute- 1/4/2001 to 31/3/2005) and M/s. Alba Equipments (Period of dispute December, 2000 to March, 2005) in appeal No.E/483/07 and E/806/07 respectively were engaged in the activity of manufacturing and clearance of Garment Finishing Equipments falling under various chapter heading numbers to the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. M/s. Sunfab was not registered with the Central Excise Department. On gathering intelligence that M/s. Sunfab was manufacturing excisable goods and clearing the same under the brand name Sunrise and were not paying the appropriate duty, not following the Central Excise procedures, the officers of the Central Excise Headquarters Preventive Unit, Bangalore-III commissionerate visited the premises of M/s. Sunfab on 19/4/2004. During the visit, statements were recorded from the partner of M/s. Sunfab, Bangalore. Subsequent to such visits and une....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orandum wherein they had annexed the photocopies of the use of word Sunrise on Solar Water Heaters, FRP corrugated flexible hose pipes, paint brushes, etc. It is the submission that the word sunrise is also a election symbol of political parties and it cannot be called the brand name of anyone and it is also used by hotels, beauty saloons and many other places including public places and points. For this proposition, he would rely upon the following decisions:- i. Leo Engineering Vs. CCE [2009(241) ELT 533(T)] ii. Garnier solutions Vs. CCE [2008(232) ELT 311 (Tri. Bang.)] iii. Ample Industries Vs. CCE [2007(218) ELT 456 (T)] iv. CCE Vs. Soni & Toni Electrical [2007(217) ELT 457 (T)] v. CCE Vs. Tracore Paints & Allied Products [2006(193) ELT 43 (Tri. Bang.)] vi. CCE Vs. Balaji Electrodes P. Ltd. [2005(191) ELT 204 (Tri. Bang.)] vii. CCE Vs. Geo Engg. Works [2004(165) ELT 463 (Tri. Bang.)] viii. Hukum Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2006(195) ELT 289 (Tri. Bang.)] ix. Bags and Bags Vs. CCE [2006(196) ELT 432 (Tri. Bang.)] x. J.Prasad Polymers Vs. CCE [2003(155) ELT 486 (T)] xi. Mukur Pharmaceuticals Co. P. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2001(13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in establishment from 1999 to 2000 and that they were using the brand name since the time of inception. It is the submission that Shri R. Baskar, Partner of M/s. Sunrise Services in his statement submitted that the said brand is owned by them and they have applied for brand registration with the Trade Mark authority on 09/09/2003 and they do not have any branches in the country. It is the submission that there is no dispute to this fact as the said statements were not retracted. Subsequently, he would bring to our attention the clauses of Notification No.8/2001 and submit that once the brand name was registered, the eligibility of benefit of SSI exemption would not be available to the assessee. For this proposition, he would rely upon the decision of Honrable Supreme Court in the following cases:- a. Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore [2005-TIOL-120-SC-CX] b. CCE, Trichy Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. [2005(183) ELT 123 (SC)] c. CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Khanna Industries [2007(207) ELT 17 (SC)] d. Unison Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2009-TIOL-30-SC-CX] e. CCE, Trichy Vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004(165) ELT 481 (SC)] f. CCE, C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. Sunrise Services had sought the registration of brand name Sunrise for identical / similar goods manufactured and cleared by them. The above said applications were filed by M/s. Sunrise Services with the Trademark Authority on 9/9/2003. The brand Sunrise was claimed by M/s. Sunrise Services for identical set of products that could be considered as the brand registered or pending registration with the authorities in respect of the goods manufactured by M/s. Sunrise Services. In our considered view, the appellants herein i.e. M/s. Sunfab and M/s. Alba Equipments could not contend that Sunrise word does not belong to any one, on the face of the documents which was filed before the Government authority for registration of trademark. We find that the various judgments as cited by the ld. DR would clearly cover the issue in favour of the Revenue as regards the use of brand name of another person. In our considered view, the appellants herein M/s. Sunfab and M/s. Alba Equipments could not have used the brand Sunrise claiming it as a universal name from 9/9/2003. It is seen from the records that M/s. Sunfab as well as M/s. Sunrise Services, b....