TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es liable to Central Excise duty. They were availing small scale exemption. Certain inquiries were initiated against the appellant for non-payment of Central Excise duty on cables using brand name "Deelux Premium" which belongs to another unit, namely Deelux Cable & Wire Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Proceedings initiated against the appellants resulted in the order-in-original dated 20/03/2012 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of excise duty of Rs. 70,80,969/-. He imposed penalties on the unit and Shri Deepak Sharma, son of Shri Major Kumar Sharma, proprietor of the appellant unit. The cables seized in various premises were also confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd name of Deelux Premium found in their premises could not be taken to mean that all their production of cable is with the brand name of another person. The reason for the cables found with the brand name of Deelux Premium was explained as error in supply of print block by the supplier; (iv) The enquiry with the dealers indicated that both Deelux and Deelux Premium Cables were available in the market and it is not proved that all their production are only Deelux Premium; (v) Their brand name 'Deelux' is part of the brand name 'Deelux Premium' that will bring association with another person making cable is not tenable. They were in the business of manufacturing cable with the 'Deelux' name for many years before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir unregistered brand name 'Deelux' sometime from 1980 onwards. The appellants are the proprietorship concern. From February 2006 another unit Deelux Cable & Wire Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur got the brand name "Deelux Premium" registered for similar types of cables. This is a private limited company with some of the family members of the proprietor of the appellant as Directors; (b) Cables worth Rs. 10,62,456/- bearing the brand name of 'Deelux Premium' were seized in the factory premises of the appellant. Admittedly the goods manufactured by them are with brand name of another person; (c) Enquiries with the dealers revealed that cables with brand name of 'Deelux' and 'Deelux Premium' were available during the mater....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e premises of the appellant bearing brand name 'Deelux Premium'. The Revenue's case is that through out the period of demand the appellant made cables using another person's brand name. Accordingly, the SSI exemption was denied and duty confirmed. We could not find supportive evidence for such summary conclusion. 5. It is a fact that cables, as mentioned above, were seized in the premises of appellant. Even if it is conceded that such manufacture on the brand name of Deelux Premium is due to an error in the supply of print block, the appellant cannot escape the consequences of such error resulting in duty liability. Other than this, there is no direct or corroborative evidence to establish that the appellant manufactured an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lled by the same family and as such even the infringement of trade mark was not taken up seriously by the owner of said trade mark. He relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE, Trichy vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) We find that in the said case, the party had used the brand name and photograph of the founder of the group. The brand name owned by another company was used by R.P. Traders. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the brand name of DEELUX has been in the use of the appellant for many years before coming into existence of Deelux Cable & Wire Pvt. Ltd. having different brand name Deefux Premium. In fact both the brand names were sought to be registered on the....