TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Ld, Commissioner (Appeals), Kolkata. In the Order-in-Appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the dropping of the demand of duty of Rs. 2,31,517/- and confirmed the demand raised in the SCN dated 15.02.2005. Aggrieved against the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Railway Track Construction Materials. The appellant received a purchase order dated 10.11.2003 from M/s Ganpati Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (GIPL) for supply of Metal Liners, to be manufactured as per RDSO Drawing nos. T-3741/T- 3742 and directly supplied to Indian Railways. 2.1. A SCN dated 15.02.2005 was issued to the Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o seek clarification from the Railways regarding the purpose of such marking. 2.5. The Deputy Commissioner, after due inquiry and considering the clarification, passed a de novo order dated 27.08.2009, dropping all demands and holding that the initials "GIPL" were not a brand name within the meaning of Notification No. 9/2003- CE. 2.6. The department challenged this de novo order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 27.03.2018, allowed the department's appeal and restored the earlier demand, reinterpreting the marking "GIPL" as a brand name. 2.7. Aggrieved against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Appellant submits that the entire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in compliance with regulatory or customer requirements, are not brand names. 3.4. The Appellant further submits that the department has not issued any notice to the owner of the brand 'GIPL' as a co-noticee in the show cause notice. As they have merely executed the order received from M/s Ganpati Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (GIPL) for supply of Metal Liners and embossed the words 'GIPL' in the Metal Liners, as advised by them, only Ganpati Industrial Pvt. Ltd. alone can clarify whether embossing the word 'GIPL' would amount to fixing of brand name or not. Since, Ganpati Industrial Pvt. Ltd. has not been included in the proceedings, the Appellant submits that the demand of duty confirmed against them by denying the benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt indicated the marking of 'GIPL' on the Metal Liners and supplied the goods to railways. The allegation of the department is that the metal liners bore the initials "GIPL" and thus carried a brand/trade name, disqualifying the appellant from exemption under Notification no. 9/2003-CE. 6.1. We find that the Appellant has categorically replied on 30.03.2005, explaining that the markings were not brand names but only identification initials required by Railways for traceability, and the goods were not elsewhere marketable or intended for trade other than Indian Railways. In this regard, we find merit in the submission of the Appellant. It is a fact on record that the goods were never intended for commercial sale in the open market....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... approved any initial/trade mark with the suppliers of materials. Accordingly, we find that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly concluded that the initials 'GIPL' used by the Appellant would not constitute a brand name. we fully agree with the findings of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submission of the Ld. A.R. that the Deputy Commissioner should have sought further clarification from RDSO section of the Railways. 6.4. We also find merit in the submission of the appellant that the department has not issued any notice to the owner of the brand 'GIPL' as a conoticee in the show cause notice. As they have merely executed the order received from M/s Ganpati Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (GIPL) for ....