2017 (1) TMI 371

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... department. Certain investigations were carried out in July 2009 in their various premises. On completion of the investigation, proceedings were initiated to demand Central Excise duty from the appellant on the ground that they were not eligible for small scale exemption in respect of goods manufactured with brand name of another person. Proceedings concluded with the original order confirming Central Excise duty liability of Rs. 46,88,800/-. Seized branded goods were also confiscated but released with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine. Equal amount of penalty was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order, upheld the original order. 2. The dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the appellant to reiterate that the appellant have been using another person s brand name in clearing the photo frames, as such the duty liability has been correctly confirmed. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. First of all, we note that, admittedly, the appellants did manufacture and clear photo frames with Archies brand name which does not belong to them. When they applied for the registration of the said brand name, the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai objected to the application as the brand name "Archies "is registered with another person. The said brand name was registered for various items. The application filed by M/s Archies Greetings and Gift Limited for registration of the said brand for phot....