2016 (6) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Nanthuk, Joint CDR For the Respondent : Shri S.V. Apte, Advocate ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: The appeal by the Revenue is against order dated 13.01.2008 of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Indore. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Plant Growth Regulator liable to central excise duty. They were availing exemption available to small scale units under exemption notification no. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emption claimed on such products is deniable in terms of the said notification as they have used the brand name of others for clearing the excisable goods. 3. Ld. AR relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. - 2007 (210) ELT 161 (SC) and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tilrode Chem Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (207) ELT 573 (Tribunal-Bang.). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not the respondent used somebody else brand name in the excisable goods cleared by them to make them ineligible for the claim of concession under the said notification. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) examined the issue in detail as under:- "In this case, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the trade mark "Superfix" which was assigned in the name of the Appellants by a deed of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rship of the trade mark/brand and that there was no deed of assignment as in the present case. In view of this position, I am satisfied that the Appellants have rightly availed SSI exemption for the period 2006-07 in respect of the product bearing the brand name "Superfix"." 7. The case laws relied upon by the ld. AR mainly dealt with the registration of brand name and the implication of regist....