2023 (2) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....set aside the order in original dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 2. The appellant is registered with the Central Excise department and manufactures Mosquito Repellent Spray falling under Chapter Heading No. 38089091 of the Central Excise Tariff. It sells this spray in the brand name "MosGuard". Its accounts were audited by the Assistant Commissioner (Audit) who found that the appellant manufactured mosquito spray and cream and other products as per a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with Defence Research and Development Establishment who provided the technical knowhow. One of the conditions of the MOU was that the appellant shall mention on the products that they were manufactured with technical knowhow from DRDE/D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ification. Accordingly, it was proposed to demand duty of Rs. 30,70,261/- under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalties were proposed to be imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The original authority dropped the proceedings in pursuance to the show cause notice. On appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalties as proposed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 5. The short question which needs to be answered is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. It is undi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s were being sold under the brand name of DRDO. "MosGuard‟ is the brand name of the appellant and not that of DRDO/DRDE. However, the goods were manufactured with the help of technology transferred by DRDO under MOU and this fact is mentioned on the products along with the logo of DRDO. This cannot be considered as trade mark in any sense of the term. While the explanation paragraph 5 of the notification expands the scope of the word "brand name" or "trade name" in the notification it does specify that the mark, symbol, monograph, lable, signature etc. should be used in relation to the specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate the connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person u....