TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd name Munchee belongs to M/s. Ceylon Biscuits Limited, Sri Lanka. The appellants are a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Ritzbury Lanka (P) Limited, Sri Lanka, who in turn is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Ceylon Biscuits Limited, Sri Lanka. 3. The Department s allegation against the appellants was based on the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE 2000 (115) ELT 238, wherein it was held that if the specified goods are affixed with the brand name of a foreign person, or a trader who is not a manufacturer, the benefit of SSI exemption would not be available. The Department also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Management Advisors and Leasing (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE 2002 (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at if a manufacturer uses even a part of the brand name of another person, he shall be disentitled to claim the benefit of SSI exemption. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that they have not used the brand name of any other person, that the impugned brand names were owned by the 100% holding companies of the appellant-company and that even though holding companies and subsidiary companies are separate entities, in the eyes of law, they shall not be considered completely different from one another. In this case, the holding companies in Sri Lanka have assigned the exclusive right of using their respective brand names to the appellants vide their letter dated 15.8.1997 and the appellants have applied for registration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner for re-quantification against which the revenue has no grievance. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on point No. 1 is, therefore, affirmed. 2. Point No. 2 has been decided by the? Tribunal against the revenue relying upon a judgment of the Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of ESBI Transmission Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 47 (Cal.) which was upheld by a Division Bench of that Court in CCE v. ESBI Transmission Pvt. Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 292. 3. Admittedly, against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court the revenue did not file any appeal. The same has become final. 4. Since, the revenue did not challenge the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the afore-mentioned case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not make the appellant owner of the brand name for the purpose of SSI exemption. The learned DR also argues that small scale exemption is meant for small producers and not for subsidiaries of foreign companies. 9. We have considered arguments from both sides, the case records as well as the cited case laws. We find that the period in question in this case is November 1999 to June 2002. The duty involved is Rs.18,81,084/- and the show-cause notice has been issued on 10.1.2003. The appellants have contended that the assignment of the brand name was done by a letter dated 15.8.1997 but the application for registration was done only on 15.7.2002 after the jurisdictional officers started enquiring about the affixation of brand name....