TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 15.12.2006 issued to all the respondents herein is that M/s Exion (India) Pvt. Ltd. (EIPL for short) and M/s Mercury (International) Pvt. Ltd. (MIPL for short) situated in near vicinity of each other, were engaged in manufacture of Sodium Hypochlorite Solution (falling under Chapter Heading 28.28 of CETA, 1985) and other products like Glassy Sodium Metaphosphate & Water Treatment Plants without obtaining Central Excise Registration for manufacture of the same. It appeared to Revenue that Calfix, being used to denote the brand name of chemical is being used by MIPL, to specifically denote the brand of EIPL for the water treatment chemical, being supplied. So far, the contention of respondent-Shri Durgesh Rai that Calfix denotes the chem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t had categorically contended that Calfix Grade-A was a descriptive nomenclature of the product and not a brand name or trade name used in the course of trade. The issue involved and merit consideration in the appeals is as to whether Calfix Grade-A was a brand name of Appellant No.2 within the definition as given in Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 for the purpose of disentitlement of SSI exemption. I take up the issues one by one for consideration. As regards the issue relating to clearances of chemicals by the Appellant No.1 under the alleged brand of Appellant No.2, Revenue has placed reliance on the statements of employees of Appellant No.1 and confirmed the demand. The appellants have categorically pleaded that Calfix-G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upplied by various independent vendors to Central Government, State Government & their undertaking organizations against tenders awarded to them. Further, it is also not a case of the Revenue that the appellant had exceeded the exemption limit prescribed under Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 in the respective years. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Calfix (Grade-A-Technical) could not be held as a brand of Appellant No.2 and clearances effected by Appellant No.1 merit SSI exemption, if otherwise admissible. In view of above, I find that demand of duty and interest thereon are not maintainable." 3. Heard learned AR for Revenue and perused the grounds of appeal. 4. In the ground it has been urged that t....