2007 (8) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovided under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. dated 1-3-2000 during the year 2000-01. In other words, during the said period, they paid duty on cement at the concessional rate of Rs. 200/- per MT. There was a condition stipulated under each of the two Notifications, which was to the effect that exemption would not be applicable if the cement was sold with a brand name or trade name of another person. Brand name/trade name was also defined in the two Notifications and, accordingly, it meant a name or a mark such as symbol, monogram, signature or invented words or writing which is used in relation to a product for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate, a connection in the course of trade between the product and some person using such n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.). In that case, the question was whether, for the earlier period M/s. DCL were eligible for the benefit of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 5/98-C.E. dated 2-6-1998 (predecessor to Notifications No. 5/99-C.E. and No. 6/2000-C.E.  relevant to the instant case, in  respect  of  cement  cleared  in  packets superscribed : "Manufactured by Dharani Cement Ltd. A Subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd." This Tribunal held that the benefit of the Notification was not lost on account of the above superscription on the product packets. Before the Apex Court, the Revenue (appellant) contended that M/s. DCL were using the name of M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t and M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. It is suggested that the original authority be directed to decide afresh on the question as to whether the assessee had intention of indicating a connection between their product and M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. Ld. SDR has opposed this suggestion and has urged that the assessee's appeals be dismissed as the issue is already covered against them by the Apex Court's judgment. 3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we are also of the view that the issue is already covered against the appellants by the Apex Court's judgment. Before the Apex Court, the assessee had admitted that they were using the above superscription on their cement packets with the intention of indicating a connection be....