Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (11) TMI 769

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of dispute, they were availing SSI exemption. Certain quantities of bolts were cleared to their customers by putting their initial - VF, RE, TVS, DECENT, H.F., J.P.F. and POOJA FORGE. The department was of the view that these marks have to be treated as trade name or brand names belonging to other persons and hence the goods bearing these marks would not be eligible for SSI exemption and it is on this basis that the show cause notice was issued to the respondent for denying SSI exemption in respect of the goods bearing marks mentioned above, the demand of duty alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner who vide Order-in-Original dated 10-6-2004 dropped the proceedings holdin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant service part organization), it is mandatory for the respondent to put identification mark on the product for traceability. Therefore, compliance of quality standard certification requirement cannot be treated as affixing of brand name of another person. He submits that the identification mark put by them will constitute to be a brand name only if the mark indicates connection with the customer. He also produced affidavits of the buyers who claimed that all the marks put on the goods i.e. bolts is only identification mark and the mark is not the trade name or brand name users. In that circumstance, relying on the CBEC circular exemption. He further submits that the said issue came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that in the case of Pethe Brakes Motors Ltd.-2005 (179) ELT 57 (Tri.-Mum.), this Tribunal has observed as under: 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The first contention raised by the Id. Counsel that the word "PETHE" used on the metal labels is not a brand name or trade name but only a house mark or family name. As it happens "PET HE" is a surname and anybody having "PET HE" surname can use the same without any restriction. We agree with the submission in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Supra). The word "PET HE" is only a family name and not registered as brand or trade name of the appellants or anybody else and Department has not proved that the word "PETHE belongs to any....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld that merely because the assessee has affixed their name in terms of the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 by itself can not be held that they have affixed the brand name. The assessees have not affixed any brand name even in terms of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of as reported in 1995 (75) EL IT. 214. The affixing, of Company's name cannot be considered as affixing a brand name or trade name. This judgment clearly apply to the fact of E e case. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are rejected. 10. Further in the case of Deebha Foundry (supra), this Tribunal again has observed as under: 5.On a careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the records we notice that the SSI exemption in terms of the n....