TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, as amended. The period of dispute in this case is from 2006-2007 to October, 2009. During this period, the appellant had supplied the ceramic insulators to M/s. Taruna Decom Pvt. Ltd., Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as M/s. TDPL). M/s. TDPL in turn had contract with the State Electricity Boards for supply of these insulators. As per terms of the supply of the insulators by the appellant to M/s. TDPL, the insulators were to be affixed with name/mark "TDPL". The insulators as per the terms of the contract with M/s. TDPL had been manufactured as per ISI specifications and there is no dispute that it is M/s. TDPL who had obtained the ISI certification in respect of these in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner, Central Excise, Jaipur vide order-in-original dated 20th April, 2012 by which - (a) the Commissioner held that 'TDPL' is the brand name of M/s. TDPL and since this brand name does not belong to the appellant but belongs to M/s. TDPL, the appellant would not be eligible for benefit of SSI exemption in respect of clearances of this goods affixed with this brand name; (b) confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 72,59,227/- against the appellant along with interest on this duty under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, and appropriated an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- paid by the appellant during investigation; and (c) imposed penalty of Rs. 72,59,227/- against the appellant under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 472 (Tri.-Chennai) has held that affixing of stickers of company's name on the goods cleared by an SSI unit cannot be treated as affixing the brand name of another person, that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Sanghi Threads reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.-Bang.) has held that symbol/monogram(s) used by M/s. Sanghi Threads on the packing materials of all their products cannot be treated as their brand name or trade name and the same is only house mark to identify the manufacturer and not the product, that a name or mark to identify manufacturer and not the product cannot be treated as brand name or trade name, that in view of this, the impugned order denying the benefit of SSI exemption....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct to condition that the goods shall be affixed with the brand name or trade name, that in terms of Apex Court's judgment in the case of Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Indore reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the benefit of SSI exemption would not be available to the goods affixed with the brand name or trade name of the customers who instead of selling those goods, as such, used those goods in the manufacture of other goods, that the Tribunal in the case of Avadh Polytubes (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 2011 (268) E.L.T. 259 (Tri.-Del.) has held that the pipes cleared by M/s. Avadh Polytubes (P) Ltd. affixed with the brand name "Bharti Airtel" to M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. would not be eligible for SSI exemption under No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the goods have to be treated as a brand name of M/s. TDPL and since this brand name does not belong to the appellant, the appellant would not be eligible for SSI exemption. We find that same view has been taken by the appellant in the case of Avadh Polytubes (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur (supra), wherein in respect of the pipes cleared by M/s. Avadh Polytubes (P) Ltd. to M/s. Bharti Airtel and which were affixed to the words "Bharti Airtel" it was held that the goods would have to be treated as bearing brand name or trade name of another person and would not be eligible for SSI exemption. 7. As regards, the question of limitation the same being a mixed question of fact and a law can be examined only at the time of final hearing. 8.&ems....