TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the then Rule 173Q/226 of Central Excise Rules 1944. The period involved in the appeal is from 1-2-1989 to 31-5-1992. A show cause notice has been issued by invoking proviso to Section 11A of the CE Act. 5. The learned adjudicating authority has held that the intention behind choosing the name 'A.J. Bentax' assumes paramount importance to the facts and circumstances of the case and 'Bantex' being one of the leading manufacturer of such products in Europe, any product bearing the said name is very likely to be associated with the foreign company in the mind of the purchaser of such branded goods to the effect that the goods are being manufactured either by M/s. Bantex themselves or the appellants herein has the collaboration with or under licence from said foreign company thereof. He has stated that the name Bantex rings a bell in the minds of the purchaser about the foreign company and automatically a connection is made between the goods in question and M/s. Bantex of Denmark in the mind of the purchaser and the same is allegedly a deciding factor thereof. The learned departmental representative took us through the various portions of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on thereof. In this case it was held that printing of word 'VI JOHN' representing 'appellants' company's name and also the Brand name of another person, and embossing of letter on the cap cannot disentitle the appellants f or the benefit of S.S.I. Exemption. It was also held that goods having been cleared by appellants under their own Brand name which appeared more boldly and conspicuously cannot be said as bearing the Brand name of another person. It was stated that the above decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. A210. It was urged that as the appellant is registered under the Companies Act with the said name A.J. Bantex Pvt. Ltd., they have every right to use the company's name on their products and the S.S.I. benefit cannot be denied on the ground that the company's name, partly i.e. 'Bantex' also is used by a foreign company and the said principles have been laid down beyond any doubt by this bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal inter alia, in the case of Vetcare Organics (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 337 (Tribunal) = 2005 (67) RLT 295. It has also been stated that in several cases including in particular in the case of Bhor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the revenue appeal filed and reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 3 in the case of CCE v. Damnet Chemicals (P) Ltd. 9. The mere use of certain words containing a foreign company's name is not sufficient to establish or suggest any relationship between the manufacturer and the foreign company. This has been laid down in several cases including in particular in the case of Rotex Manufacturers & Engg. (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 492. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions : CCE v. Superex Industries - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 4 decided by the Apex Court and the Tribunal in the case of Cookie Man Foods India (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 425. 10. The burden to establish the fact that the brand name used by the appellant actually belongs to the other person is not discharged by the revenue in the facts and circumstances herein and what has been affixed is only the name of the company and hence for this reason also, the benefit of S.S.I. exemption cannot be denied at all as laid down by this Bench in the case of Shri Bajrang Ispat & Plywood Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2005 (190) E.L.T. 56. 11. The le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Sony & Toni Electricals and vice versa 2008 (84) RLT 813 CESTAT Del wherein it was held that the use of Brand name 'National Super' having not been challenged by the owner of the international Brand name 'National' the benefit of exemption is not deniable. Further it was held that 'National super' is different from 'National'. 13. On a very careful consideration of the entire issue we find that the appellants have registered the name of their company as "A.J. Bantex Pvt. Ltd." This fact is not in dispute. It is seen that A.J. Bantex is the name the appellant company. We have also seen the Certificate of Incorporation. This fact is not in dispute. There is no evidence to show that anybody has challenged the incorporation of this name 'A.J. Bantex'. It appears that 'A' and 'J' represents the names of the Directors or promoters of the Company. In any case the name of the company is 'A.J. Bantex Pvt. Ltd.' Hence the allegation is that the name 'A.J. Bantex' is affixed on the products of the company. The main charge against the appellant is that Bantex is a well known European Company based in Denmark and since Bantex is the trade mark of the European Company, the appellants are us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that Goldhofer is not Brand name of a company. It was held that the Trailer did not have the Brand name of another person and the S.S.I. Exemption was given. In the present case, it is the case of the revenue that Bantex is the Brand name of another company. Mere assertion is not sufficient and they should produce documentary evidence to show that A.J. Bantex is the Brand name of another Company. Merely by seeing the name A.J. Bantex on the products one will not associate in our view the product with the foreign company Bantex. It is for the Department to produce evidence. In any case, the decision taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vet care is squarely applicable to the present case. The appellant has every right to use their own company's name on their products. In any case there is no evidence to show that the foreign company had challenged the use of the name A.J. Bantex on the products manufactured by the appellant. In the case of Varco Sara India (P) Ltd., it was held that the burden is on the department to prove that the name belongs to another person for denying the benefit of exemption. In the case of Vikram International v. CCE, Meerut the use of the word 'Vikram Son....