TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k Kuteer Apartments, Durga Nagar Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad 500082. 3. Pursuant to investigation, it emerged that MBL manufactured and cleared dutiable goods with the trade mark/logo of MVF, accordingly the said trade mark/logo will fall under the definition of trade name in the relevant SSI Notifications. It further, appeared to the Department that: i) MBL have manufactured and cleared the goods bearing the trademark name of MVF. ii) The products manufactured by M/s. MBL are excisable and are dutiable. iii) MBL have cleared the dutiable goods without payment of duty and without obtaining Central Excise Registration. iv) During 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, value of clearances of all goods manufactured by M/s. MBL exceeded Rs. 3 crores respectively. v) MBL are not eligible for exemption under relevant SSI notifications during the years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 for the reasons mentioned supra. vi) MBL have obtained the Central Excise registration on 28.10.2003 after initiation of action by the department and have been discharging duty on the products mentioned in para 8.1 above except on Bindex Gel from 01.12.2003. vii) F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-, Rs. 9,16,498/-, Rs. 2,30,908/- on imposition of fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively. 5. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals. 6. On 21.02.2017 when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellants Sh. V. J. Sankaram, Ld. Advocate, reiterated the grounds of appeal and inter alia made the following submissions is written note: i) Issue is barred by limitation since show cause notice was issued three years after visit of Officer s and exchange of correspondence. ii) Chemical Examiner s opinion in respect of two products Bindex and Commander is that the former is feed and the latter is a mineral substance for water purification. Hence demand of duty on these two products cannot be levied. iii) No evidence was let in or exists to say that appellant knowing that the goods are fungicides and insecticides still failed to inform and take out Central Excise registration. iv) Cum duty benefit should be extended for computing value of clearances and quantification of demand. v) Impositions of penalty is justified. Apart from mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, huge penalties have also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....row with the same trade mark/logo. The authorities have allotted provisional numbers for the above products. From 1st January, 2004 onwards M/s MBL stopped using the said trade mark, apparently on initiation of the investigation by the Department. Thus it is evident that M/s. MBL manufactured and cleared all the dutiable goods with the Trade mark/logo of MVF. Hence, the exemption contained in the Notification No s. 8/2001 CE dated 01.03.2001 as amended, 8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 as amended and 8/2003 CE date 01.03.2003 as amended shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name whether registered or not of another person. In this respect Brand name or trade name means a brand name or a trade name, whether registered or not that is to say a name or a mark such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. The trade mark/logo of MVF, which is used by M/s MBL on their product....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is jointly owned, each person is owner of the brand name. In this view, in the present case, we cannot say that the respondents were using the brand name of another person. Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that even if clearances of both the units are clubbed together, they will come within the exemption limit provided in the Notification . 35. The above said decision of the Tribunal is not applicable in the present case. M/s Matrix Vet Formulations, has started using the brand name/ Trade Mark from 1996 onwards on their goods. Thus, M/s Matrix Vet Formulations is the owner of the brand name/trade mark. As per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.12.1998, M/s Matrix Vet Formulations has agreed to usage of the said brand name/trade mark by M/s Matrix Vet Pharma Ltd., (at present M/s MBL). In return M/s Matrix Vet Pharma Pvt. Ltd., shall render and furnish marketing support for the products of MVF as consideration. 10. We are not able to find any infirmity in the aforesaid conclusions of the adjudication authority. In consequence the finding in the impugned order that value of clearances of all goods manufacture by MBL exist of Rs. 3 crores re....