TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riff. They were availing of SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE. Shri Vinod Kumar Dugar is Director of the respondent company, Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Shri R.K. Mishra and Shri S. Talukdar are authorized signatory of the respondent company and Shri S. Majumdar is the production Supervisor. The respondent company during the period of dispute i.e. during the period from April, 1996 to November, 2000 was availing SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE. During this period, the respondent company was selling its goods under brand name "Dugar Tetenal". "Tetenal" is the brand name belonging to M/s. Tetenal Vertribs GmBH, Germany, with whom they had an agreement for technical collaboration. In terms of the Clause A of the notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral excise duty amounting to Rs. 17,92,095/- short paid by them by way of wrong availment of SSI exemption on the goods cleared during April, 1996 to November, 2000 along with Interest on this duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (b) Recovery from the respondent company of central excise duty of Rs.14,404/- in respect of shortage of cenvated inputs which are alleged to have been removed without payment of duty along with interest on this duty: (c) Recovery from respondent company of duty of Rs.4,129/- along with interest, on the finished goods allegedly removed clandestinely without payment of duty; (d) Imposition of penalty on the respondent company unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding that the respondent company was using the brand name "Dugar Tetenal" on their goods, which is different from the brand name "Tetenal" of M/s. Tetenel Vertribs GmBH and, therefore, the respondent company cannot be said to be using the brand name of another person and hence, would be eligible for the SSI exemption. 1.6 Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), these six appeals have been filed by the Revenue. The prayer in the Revenue's appeals is for setting aside of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoration of the order-in-original passed by the Addl. Commissioner. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Nagesh Pathak, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgement in the case of CCE, Delhi Vs. Ace Auto Company Ltd. reported in 2011 (263) ELT 3 (SC) taking the same view has held that when the brand name "Tata" does not belong to M/s. Ace Auto, the use of the brand name "Tata Ace" by M/s. Ace Auto on their goods would disentitle them for the benefit of SSI exemption under notification no.1/93-CE, and that in view of this, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that for the purpose of SSI exemption, the brand name "Dugar Tetenal" is different from the brand name "Tetenal" of M/s. Tetenal Vertribs GmBH, Germany is incorrect. 4. Shri Shekhar Vyas, ld. Counsel for the respondent reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order pleaded that the brand name "Dugar Tete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and perused the records. 6. The duty demand under dispute is of Rs. 17,92,095/- on account of denial of SSI exemption. There is no dispute that the respondent company had technical collaboration with M/s. Tetenal Venribs GmBH, Germany and till 1992, they were also paying royalty to that company for use of its brand name "Tetenal" on their goods. There is also no dispute about the fact that the brand name "Tetenal" belongs to M/s. Tetenal Vertribs GmBH, Germany. During the period of dispute, the respondent company was using the brand name "Dugar Tetenal" on their goods. The point of dispute is as to whether just by adding the word "Dugar" before the word "Tetenal" and using the brand name "Dugar Tetenal" on the goods would disentitle t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Sony" are different from the brand name "National" and "Sony" respectively and use of these composite brand names would not disentitle M/s. Vikram International for SSI exemption. 7.2 However, we find that the Tribunal's judgement in the case of CCE, Chandigarh M/s. Mahaan Dairires which has been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), has been reversed by the Apex Court vide judgement reported in 2004 (166) ELT 23 (SC), wherein the Apex Court held that mere use of the additional words with the brand name of another person would not entitle the manufacturer to claim the benefit of SSI exemption. Accordingly, the Apex Court has held that use of the brand name "Mahaan Tastemaker" by M/s. Mahaan Dairires on its product would disentitle....