2012 (11) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f tiles - Mosaic tiles, interlocked tiles, kerb stones etc. chargeable to Central Excise duty under sub-heading 6807.90 of the Central Excise tariff. The partners of NITCO are Shri A.N. Talwar (HUF), Shri P.N. Taiwar, Shri Vijay Talwar and Shri Pawan Talwar of which Shri Pawan Talwar is also the authorised signatory. NITCO avail SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/03-C.E. The period of dispute is from 1-1-06 to 31-3-2010. They were paying duty on the value of clearances during a financial year which was in excess of the exemption limit. The tiles are sold under the brand name - NITCO. The brand name 'NITCO' is registered in the name of the appellant firm since 1964. The department was of the view that since the brand name - NITCO is also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Shri Pawan Talwar under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 1.4 Against the above order these appeals alongwith stay applications have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay applications. 3. Shri B.L Narasimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the show cause notices themselves mention that the brand name 'NITCO' is registered in the name of the appellant firm since 1964, that in view of this, SSI exemption cannot be denied to the appellant firm as they are clearing the goods under their own brand name, not in the brand name of other person, that just because other group companies are using the brand name NITCO owned by the appellant firm, the benefit of SSI exemp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. We find that para 9 and 11 of the show cause notice dated 15-12-09 itself mention that the brand name NITCO belongs to the appellant firm since 1964. In view of this, the appellant firm cannot be accused of affixing the brand name of other person on their goods as the brand name being affixed on their goods is their own. Just because the brand name NITCO is being used by other group companies, the appellant firm cannot be denied the benefit of SSI exemption. The show cause notices do not disclose any evidence in support of the allegation that other group companies of NITCO ....