2018 (5) TMI 1410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otification their turnover is below 1.5 crores and, therefore, they are exempted from payment of central excise duty. The case of the department is that the appellant is manufacturing branded goods with the brand of 'Rastogi' brand which belongs to some other firm and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption and accordingly demand for last 5 years has been raised against the appellant by the department. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the record of the appeal. The basic evidence which the department has relied while demanding and confirming the duty against the appellant is the statement of various persons who are concerned with the manufacturing and trading business of M/s Steel Crafts (appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder No. A/50300-50301/2018 dated 23/01/2018. 4. We find that the show cause notice in this matter is primarily based on the statements recorded of certain persons wherein they have stated that the appellant have been using the brand "Rastogi" on the products manufactured by them, however, we find that the goods manufactured and seized under the panchnama dated 09/10/2013 as well as the various invoices issued by the appellant for supply of goods to M/s Rastogi Steel Furnishers, Jaipur does not have mention of any brand on them. Thus, we find that the department has not put forward any worthy evidence to prove that the appellant have been using the brand Rastogi or any other brand on the products manufactured and cleared by them, which c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved that, unless and until the product is bearing the brand name which may be a name or mark, there cannot be a connection of the goods with some person in the course of trade. Similarly, in the case of CCE, Indore vs. Kuber Industries, 2010 (249) E.L.T. 78 (Tri. - Del.), the Tribunal observed that, affixing the family name or brand name in the letter head does not amount to the use of brand name of third parties. In the instant case, there is no third party who owns the brand name of "Rastogi". The Department has neither issued any notice or examined the firms of family members who are also engaged in the similar line of business. Only the assessee appellants have been made target which is not desirable. Thus, the Department has made out a....