TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent : Sri T. Vinod Kumar JUDGMENT (Per Honble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah) This Central Excise Appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is filed at the instance of the Department against the Final Order dated 05.05.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short CESTAT) by raising the following questions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee has used the brand name of other person. In the instant case, the name VOLTARC has been inscribed on the packets/cartons of the assessee (as per the observation made by the Officers as seen in page 2 line 14th of the SCN) whereas the words VOLTARC have been previously used by VEPL with little change. As such, whether the conclusion drawn by CESTAT is correct in law or fact has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent setting aside the Order-in-original. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is in appeal before this Court. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Customs & Central Excise appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material placed on record. The facts are not in dispute. At the outset it may be noted that M/s.Voltarc El....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder-in- Original is barred by limitation. Further, the Tribunal also found that Voltarc symbol which was being used on the wrapper and packer was reflecting only the name of the company and not the trade mark of the product. The argument of the respondent that even in the classification list they were mentioning the same and the Voltarc was not a brand but a trade-mark was accepted. The Tribunal....