TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2004 dtd. 29-9-03 SCN dtd. 31-5-04 Per.: July 2003 to Oct. 2003 4 22/CEX/2005 dtd. 31-1-05 SCN dtd. 6-10-04 Per.: Nov 04 to Jan 04 5 63/CEX/05 Dtd. 29-7-05 SCN dtd. 14-1-05 Per.: Feb. 04 to April 04 6 64/CEX/05 Dtd. 29-7-05 SCN dtd. 29-4-05 Per.: May 04 to July 04 7 E/2398/06 P-1/85-86/06 dtd. 24-02-06 95/CEX/2005 Dtd. 12/12/05 SCN dtd. 9/9/05 Per.: Nov. 04 to Feb.05 4,50,029/- 1,00,000/- Rule 25 8 E/2399/06 78/CEX/2005 Dtd. 28-10-05 SCN dtd. 25/7/05 Per.: Aug. 04 to Oct. 04 4.00,636/- 75,000/- Rule 25 9 E/2400/06 P-1/84/2006 dtd. 24-02-06 1/CEX/04 dtd.28-1-04 SCN dtd. 3/12/04 Per.: Dec. 97 to July 2002 37,83,544/- 37,83,544/-(Sec. 11AC) 3,00,000/- Rule 173Q(1) 10 E/508/07 PI/354/2006 dtd. 30-11-06 15/CEX/06 Dtd. 20-6-06 SCN dtd 20-2-06 Per.: March 2005 1,10,930/- 25,000/- Rule 25 Appeals of Seal Jet India Pvt Ltd: Sr. No. Appeal No. SCN date Period of demand (beyond limitation) Amount (Rs.) OIO dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Commissioner were appealed against before the Commissioner(Appeals). However in the case of the order passed by the Commissioner appeal was filed before this Tribunal. This Tribunal in case of Seal Jet India Pvt ltd dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide order No.A/324/2330/13/EB/C-II dated 9-4-2014. The said appellant filed appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein Hon'ble High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter to the this Tribunal to determine whether the brand name "Seal Jet" was belonging to foreign company and also to consider the issue of limitation and penalty. Hence the appellants are before us. 2. Shri. Gajendra Jain, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant namely Seal Jet India Pvt. Ltd. He submits that "Seal Jet" is not brand name of Economos, Austria Gmbh which has been clarified by the said company. He submits that the name "Seal Jet" is not fixed on the product where as this is mentioned on the packaging of the goods manufactured by the appellant, therefore since the goods itself do not bear the name of "Seal Jet" it cannot be treated as branded goods. As regard the limitation, he submits that issue relates to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany Economos, Austria. As regard the demand of extended period, he submits that in the year 2000 when their turn over was crossed SSI limit they had obtained Central Excise registration. They also filed the declaration under Rule 173B of Central Excise Act, 1994 in February, 2000. The fact that appellant mentioning logo "Seal Jet" on the package of the product and the machine, from which it is manufactured purchased from Economos, Austria also bear the name of "Seal Jet" which known to the department. Even letter heads through which correspondence made with department were also bearing the logo "Seal Jet" therefore there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant hence extended period of demand could not have been invoked. He further submits that only on the basis of logo appearing on the stationary, polythene bags, invoices, the SSI exemption cannot be denied, in view of the Supreme Court judgments in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur Vs. Superex Industries [2004(174) ELT 4(S.C.)]. He submits that "Seal Jet" brand was admittedly used by more than one person, therefore the fact that brand name belong to another person is not established. In this rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the product is not branded. In case of packaged goods the brand is always affixed on the packages and not on the product. We are of the clear view that goods cleared by the appellant is branded goods under the brand name of "Seal Jet". Now the issue whether the "Seal Jet" brand belong to some other person, we observed that factually the machine imported by the appellant from Economos, Austria bear the same brand in the same design i.e. "Seal Jet", This established that the "Seal Jet" brand belongs to Economos, Austria. As regard the various correspondence by which Economos, Austria denied that "Seal Jet" brand does not belong to them and they have no objection to use logo "Seal Jet" by any other person, we are of the view that even though Economos, Austria has stated above but the fact remains that "Seal Jet" brand was affixed on the machine supplied by Economos, Austria. This is sufficient to establish that the "Seal Jet" brand belong to Economos, Austria therefore various correspondence through which Economos, Austria denies the ownership of the brand will not make any difference to the fact that brand name "Seal Jet" belongs to the Economos, Austria. At the most it can be said....