2017 (6) TMI 894

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue against the two respondents are that they availed the benefit of SSI notification for manufacture and clearance of leather chemicals with the brand names of others. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue has filed the present appeals. 2. With the background, we heard Shri K.Veerabhadra Reddy, Ld.D.R and Shri S. Hari Radhakrishnan, Ld. Advocate. 3. The Revenue's case against the respondents are summarized as below :- 3.1 The respondent's companies AI and ACI are registered manufacturers of leather chemicals falling under Chapters 32, 34, 38 and 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975. In the year 1975, Shri A. Murugesan and Smt. Susila Murugesan started a company in the name and style of M/s.Aksol Chemicals for the manufact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in favour of Shri Viswanath M. Raja and Smt. Vidya M. Raja. The department proceeded to deny the benefit of SSI exemption for AI as well as ACI by taking the view that they were manufacturing the goods with the trade names which did not belong to them but were belonging to Aksol Chemicals. The original authority confirmed the demands vide his Orders-in-Original Nos.57/2004 and 58/2004 both dt. 30.12.2004. However, vide the impugned order, the demands were set aside by taking the view that the entire propriety of group companies were sold to the respondent as per sale deed dt. 27.03.1998 whereby the respondents were given absolute freedom and title to use trade names for the leather chemicals manufactured in their respective factories. 3.2 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4 of Notification No.8/99 dt. 22.8.99 and 8/2000 dt. 1.3.2000. In terms of relevant paras of the above notifications, the benefit is to be denied in respect of specified goods, if cleared bearing a brand name of another person. In the present case, the allegation is that the two respondents have cleared the goods bearing the brand name of another person i.e. the brand name originally owned and used by M/s.Aksol Chemicals and subsequently by various group companies. Further allegation is that the respondents also cleared the goods which were described with the prefix "Emi". Since all such goods were cleared to MTPL, it was alleged that the prefix "Emi" was in fact the brand name of MTPL. 5. On going through the records of the case, we find ....