2013 (12) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....firmed against the appellant along with interest and penalties. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act on 11.05.1994 and carrying out business of manufacturing of oil seeds and 'O' rings under the name and style of M/s. Seal Jet India P. Ltd. The appellant applied for Central Excise registration from 03.12.1995 by availing the exemption on concessional rate of duty available for SSI units. On 30.3.1996, the department raised a query with the appellant that the appellant is wrongly availing exemption of concessional rate of duty available for SSI units inasmuch as manufactured and cleared goods by using the brand name of foreign company. The said query....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompanies located in India are using the same logo visiting card and product catalogue. Therefore, he relied on the decision of Varco Sara India P. Ltd. 2004 (171) ELT 79 (T). He also relied on the decision of A.J. Bantex (P) ltd. 2008 (229) ELT 582 and VI John Beauty Tech 2002 (143) ELT 148 wherein he mainly insisted that the Seal Jet is the name of their company and they have not generated any logo at all. In fact they have written a short name of the company in abbreviated form. That does not mean that they are using the brand name or logo as such till they get registered with Trade Mark authorities. He further submitted that assuming without accepting the appellant has suppressed the facts from the department, still no penalty can be imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ria which is reproduced above, shows that Seal jet is the brand name of ECONOMOS Austria. Therefore the facts stated by the appellant are totally wrong. He further submitted that in the case of CCE vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders 2004 (165) ELT 487 has held that use of even part of brand name of another person indicating a connection in course of trade would be sufficient to disentitle a claim of exemption. We further find that in case of Meyer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (267) ELT 145(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that retrospective date for registration certificate, as applicable under Trade Mark Law based on the principles of deemed equivalence to public user, cannot be extended to excise law. 8. Heard both sides in detail and e....